G'day guys,
Some more from Brian for a while (and sorry to Brian this didn't come through
sooner) I'm about to go overseas for work again.
And on a side note can anyone identify "the little fig between DF-S14
and DF-S-16 is? I'd assume DF-S15, but there is no Df-S15 listed at
GZG.com". Unfortunately I've run out of time to dig for myself.
Thanks heaps
Beth
> Brian's message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> For a grav ARV, i'd suggest that you have the following constraints.
*snip a bunch of pretty cool background flavor*
All cool stuff, but basically PSB/Flavor, no real effect on game
mechanics.
I'm goign to drop the recoverry issue, since recovery vehicles are outside the
game for now.
> Capacity of 8 would represent a fairly big module, that means the
How big of a class is a 20' container? Is that size 2?
I don't know. Capacity is a pretty nebulous concept, isn't it? It's mostly
volume, but is affected my mass.
What it comes down to is, what's a fair amount of capacity to require in order
for a repair vehicle to be able to make field repairs throughout one game?
> True, but in game terms, unless you want to add rules that tie the
Upon what?
> A Blade is easy to tack on. The Abrams
And those are the ones that are necessary to create all the emplacements for
an entire unit.
> SEE trucks and the like with backhoes are
And again, how much work could such a configuration do within the course of
one game term? Sure, there are varying sizes of enginnering equipment, that
can do varying amounts of work in a given time, but that's a bit too
fine-grained for DS.
> capacity 6. Even allowing that a backhoe arm & bucket IS smaller than
So now I have to calculate 80% of the vehicle, apply that capacity to the
vehicle, then remember that it can create 4 scrapes for vehicles of the same
class? What about cross-class? How many class 2 scrapes can a class 4
vehicle dig in a turn? How many class 5 can a class 1 vehicle? What about
infantry cover? In the end, isn't is simpler to say "Engineering excavation
gear takes up x amount of capacity, and a vehicle with said gear can prepare Y
emplacements of any class (including for infantry elements) per game turn"?
> A Blade allows a fixed size scrape and only does
Ugh. I still think that's getting too complicated. And the obstacles
--
what about reinforced obstacles, not piddly earthen berms? Should a blade
clear those? What about pop-up mines? Will they still jump when
disrupted by the blade, and will that pose a threat to the vehicle? Again,
separate the excavation, mine clearing, and demolition functions, but
standardize each.
> Actually, I would too. Based on the rules, it seems that DFFG's make
Really sort range is still ranged, and that means "Farther than ajacent." In
addition, ask Mr atkinson if a Demo gun could be used against infantry. So the
rules do seem more geared towards replicating the effect of placed demo
charges as opposed to a gun. And in game terms, for clearing buildings and
obstacles, given the rules, I'd rather have a DFFG than an engineering
package.
> The problem is, that as the rules stand, I can deck that vehicle out
I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The
problem is, if you don't assign a specific capacity to the equipment, you'll
run into trouble with two types of players:
1. Cheeseheads who will do just what I warned of above. 2. Honest players who
don't want to engage in such Stiltonesque practices, but can't agree on the
degree by which such a package will reduce the capacity of the vehicle.
In the end, it just seems a lot simpler to assign a specific capacity to the
different functions?
> Look at modern examples
OK
> The Brits (basically the fore fathers
So if you assume 4 capacity for the crews being rescued (that's equal to an
infantry element) and one extra APSW, that's a heck of a lot of capacity being
taken up by the recovery & towing gear, especially if you allow it to only tow
smaller vehicles. That's 5 capacity to tow a class 1, 10 to tow a class 2 or
smaller, 15 for a class 3 or smaller, etc.... in essence, (Class towed x 5).
That's what I proposed, IIRC.
> AEV: A tank w/ a turreted demolition gun and
I'll get to this below.
> AVLB: a tank chassis with turret removed and
IOW, The bridge takes up capacity equal to the max class of vehicle it can
support x 5. Again, wasn't that what I proposed earlier?
> I'm not so concerned with the exact
This ties in with your comments about an AEV above:
> Same class or smaller. Standard packages cost
Again, the problem with a sliding scale of capacity means a sliding scale of
capability. I'd prefer a fixed capacity, and a fixed capability. By
giving separate capacities for excavation, demolition, recovery, and mine
clearing, you can equip a vehicle with all or some of those cpabilities as the
player sees fit.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> And again, how much work could such a configuration
It could dig enough foxholes to put 2-3 dismounted
stands under hard cover.
> Ugh. I still think that's getting too complicated.
No shi'ite. Mr.Gill occasionally forgets that piddling around the FAS website
and owning a demilled toy car does NOT make him an expert on how real
militaries operate.
> Really sort range is still ranged, and that means
Yeah. Demo guns have a really short range (300-500
meters, depending on the precise type) but will basically kill anything they
hit. Or exposed troopies standing near where they hit.
> At 5:13 PM -0700 7/8/04, John Atkinson wrote:
Certainly. What do you think? 1 stand per unit size per unit time?
> > Ugh. I still think that's getting too complicated.
And by the same token you tend to have a very US centric view of how
militaries operate and with respect to some histories....or forgetting some
interesting British adaptation to the German fortifications that the 79th
Armored Division conjured up (Frankly, I think you and your chaps should have
Percy Hobart tattooed on your shoulders...but that's just my historical
sentiment talking).
Given that I don't get paid to do this, I figure I'm kind of knowledgeable
about the stuff...for an amateur. Thing is, rather than busting your chops
about it, I just point out what I've read in books, magazines, journals, web
sites and heard from folks (usually Poms or Diggers) in the services.
Frankly, I still think worrying about ultra precise specifics for the Mine
Clearing bits in the dirtside scale is a bit much.
"My AEV rolls up to the Minefield and clears it in a turn."
"I roll my AEV up and deploy the MICLIC to deal with the minefield. That's not
a minefield a MICLIC can clear, you need the advanced gravitic mine clearing
system"
Do you think the game speed would be served by a granular rule that gauges
minefield cleared lane
width/depth per unit size (or type) is really
necessary? What's wrong with saying a given mine counter is cleared by an
undamaged AEV at the end of it's turn next to the counter regardless of size
as long as it has the package?
As you well know, there are lots of ways to clear mines. Dismounts with
special kit and lots of
brains, guts and training or armored/mounted
troops with special kit, guts and training.
Again, is the game really served by a set of rules for clearing an abatis vs
clearing a hedgehog with a given set of AEV kit? The weapons rules aren't even
that complex....
> Yeah. Demo guns have a really short range (300-500
Turns out my view on this was wrong....The 165mm on the Centurion AVRE has a
2400 meter effective range with a 60 pound projectile. Far better than the
AVRE of WWII with the 40 pound 140 yard Petard (aka flying dustbin).
Short of a complex new gun (LVC? w/ HESH or
something futuristicy) I'm not sure what would
work for that nice under cover anti-infantry bit.
What about flame throwers...those crocodiles with AVRE's worked wonderfully in
Cherborg. The Yanks beat their heads against it for days until the 79th came
in and cracked a few of the bunkers. That was all the Germans needed to see in
order to start waving the white flags about.
PS John, you do know who Percy Hobart is right?
> At 9:50 AM +1000 7/9/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> What it comes down to is, what's a fair amount of capacity to require
Given that you can in RL have a dude in a CUCV
help fix some basic electrical/electronic
problems on a large class 3 sized tank (abrams) it seems reasonable to have
different ARV packages on different sized vehicles work in most cases. Given
how nebulous the repair problems are...PSB it, and be reasonable.
I see no problem with a class 1 Recovery vehicle
rolling-up and helping fix a problem than with a
class 3 Armored Recovery vehicle rolling up and doing the same thing.
Difference is, I'd allow the Class 3 to tow another class 3 vehicle back to a
rear area to get it out of the FEBA.
> >>True, but in game terms, unless you want to
Well, it's reasonable to expect that a Class 5 Excavator can move more dirt in
a turn with it's blade than a class 1 excavator can.
A Cat D9 (class 4?) is going to move more dirt per unit time than a WWII
Airborne Bulldozer.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/vfe/vfe3.htm
> >A Blade is easy to tack on. The Abrams
To a precise degree, so I guess its a question. Blade allows scrapes for that
size. AEV kit allows scrapes and emplacements that size and smaller in
fractions for infantry and smaller vehicles. Plus clearing of obstacles.
> And again, how much work could such a configuration do within the
I agree, I figure that the basic game terms of 1 vehicle size per unit turn.
Thus a Class 3 can move 3 classes worth of dirt per turn. Easy to PSB, easy to
track. And you could combine several units to get a bigger position. Two Class
3's dig a placement for a class 6 super heavy in a turn.
> So now I have to calculate 80% of the vehicle, apply that capacity to
I think we've been talking past each other mostly...
Class of vehicle. Buy the AEV package as a percentage of vehicle size.
Calculate other basic stuff. And Bob's yer uncle.
> Ugh. I still think that's getting too complicated. And the obstacles
Assume that the AEV forces have basic countermeasures for those types of
installations. Its Dirtside not Twilight 2000.
AEVs to clear minefields. Something with a dozer blade to 'just' dig a scrape.
> Really sort range is still ranged, and that means "Farther than
Hmm, quite a difference in range between that 165mm demo gun (63 pounds 2400
yards) and the AVRE Petard of WWII (40 pounds 150 yards).
Ok, so I've changed scope here...Hmm. Intersting thinking. I think we need a
demo gun....I was thinking of the Petard of WWII as really
short/adjacent....
> I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The
Thats why I figure a significant percentage of basic vehicle capacity would
prevent cheese. You've only got 20% left to do anything with. Your AEV is
going to be mainly one mission. Not 3
mission (APC/AEV/Air Defense).
> In the end, it just seems a lot simpler to assign a specific capacity
The problem is that they don't scale. How do you assign weights to such
things? The US idea of an AEV differs from a British or German idea of an AEV.
Both tend to be on the same scale, but the
European versions tend to have augers/big arsed
backhoes/clamshell excavators and a blade and we
tend to just have a big blade here in the US.
> So if you assume 4 capacity for the crews being rescued (that's equal
Well in the case of the M88, you can cram some crew in there if need be, as I
understand it... I suppose your idea works however...So there ya go.
> Again, the problem with a sliding scale of capacity means a sliding
True, but then I worry that it drives back to the issue you were worried about
before...the jagdtransportbergflakpanzer cheese vehicle.
But perhaps we're really saying the same thing.
I'm thinking that a given size of whole (not portions) vehicle with the
'package' would be a given cost incremental with size (as sliding).
Rather than assigning capabilities in discreet forms, sorry your AEV doesn't
have the clamshell so it can't dig infantry positions...Digging can be
accomplished with an auger, digging charges, 'frikken laser beams'...etc.
Same thing with dozer blades. A blade would be a percentage of size of
vehicle. It'd be kind of hard to have a class 1 dozer blade on a class 5
vehicle...Which is where I worry that the fixed cost issue comes about.
Percentage being sliding according to vehicle size....
I suspect we need to think about this and work out some vehicles as examples
and our ideas of how they work. I'm happy with the current rules because I
think they work rather intuitively.
> G'day guys,
DF-S15 is a pack of little tracked tanks, about 10-11mm long, made a
long time back by CMD; it'll serve as a tiny one-man tank or as an
unmanned drone vehicle. They have a small turret with twin weapon apertures
that could serve as lasers or missile tubes, to taste. I
didn't actually realise it wasn't up on the store - I'll have to get
Paul to fix that!
Jon (GZG)
> Thanks heaps