G'day guys,
Well as this place has been so quiet here's some DS stuff I've been thinking
about.
Cheers
Beth
> GENERAL HOUSE RULES <<<<<<<<<<
These are house rules we're currently using (or about to try) for DS II. And
before we start a BIG thanks to any of you who I may have been inspired by (or
adopted things from)
Guided Missile Systems (GMS) May fire at multiple targets, regardless of the
guidance system used.
<Alternative: May fire at multiple targets, regardless of the guidance system
use, but for each separate target fired on in the same activation then shift
the die type DOWN 1 for ALL missiles fired in that activation.>
Fire Control Systems (FCS)
Basic - can only fire a single weapon at a single target (as written in
DS II)
Enhanced - all weapons on the vehicle may fire on the same target (as
long as all other restrictions on fire, mount type and arcs, are adhered to)
Superior - each weapon on the vehicle may fire on a separate target (as
long as all other restrictions on fire, mount type and arcs, are adhered to)
Note that irregardless of the FCS rating you can fire your main gun and the
APSW at separate targets.
Point Defense Systems (PDS) Enhanced and Superior PDS may fire at artillery in
addition to missiles. Any unit within the beaten zone of an artillery strike
with enhanced or superior PDS may use it to try and knock down the round. The
target vehicle rolls a die based on the level of its PDS (D4 for enhanced, D6
for superior) and the artillery player uses a die based on the size of the
artillery round (D8 for light, D10 for heavy artillery). If the target vehicle
roll exceeds the artillery roll then the artillery shell has been shot down.
Glide Bombs At any point in the aerospace fighter's path of flight the release
of a glide bomb may be declared. These bombs may be fired at any point of
impact within 60" of that point in the flight path and must be within the
front 180 degree arc of the fighter at that point in the flight path. Once
released the Glide Bomb may be targeted by LADs, ZADs and the PDS of any unit
within 1" of the point of impact.
Crew Driven Vehicle Mounts (OK I don't know what the real name is and Derek
isn't here) Certain weapons may be controlled and fired by crewmen physically
directing the weapon in the direction they want. If this is the case treat
these weapons as having a MANUAL FCS. These weapons use a D6 at Close Range, a
D4 at medium and can not bring effective fire at long range. If the weapon in
question is a vehicle mounted APSW, treat it as if it were with an infantry
unit (i.e. the player should dice for FIRE EFFECTIVENESS).
> Fire Control Systems (FCS)
I do like this idea. I often suffer from my expensive tanks being taken out by
a multitude of cheaper opponents. Having the ability to fire a secondary
weapon at an alternative target might even the odds.
What about Firing main weapon and GMS in the same activation?
> Glide Bombs
On the point of aerospace units, did anyone write up rules for gaining air
superiority as opposed to players alternatively attacking ground units with no
air to air considerations?
Jeremey
> Jeremey wrote:
I've got some on my site, in the Aerospace section here:
http://valley.150m.com/Dirtside/Aerospace.html
> Beth wrote:
Any unit within the beaten zone of an artillery strike with enhanced or
superior PDS may use it to try and knock down the round. The target vehicle
rolls a die based on the level of its PDS (D4 for enhanced, D6 for superior)
and the artillery player uses a die based on the size of the artillery round
(D8 for light, D10 for heavy artillery). If the target vehicle roll exceeds
the artillery roll then the artillery shell has been shot down.
I like the idea, but I dislike the change in dice types. How about keeping the
PDS quality dice the same, and rolling a dice type corresponding to the number
of chits drawn for the artillery size? Like: Chits Dice Type
1 D4
2 D6
3 D8
4 D10
5 D12
If the PDS die roll is larger than the artillery die roll, the target is
unaffected by the artillery damage; the PDS has successfull destroyed those
submunitions targeting this element (vehicle). Surrounding elements can still
be affected by the artillery if their PDS is unsuccessful in defending them.
For a ZAD/ADS element, a successful ZAD die roll (versus artillery size
as above) destroys the artillery shell while in flight; one burst area of
effect is removed. If the artillery was firing an open sheaf, this can break
the sheaf into two parts. If trying to destroy more, then use the procedure
for shooting at multiple GMS by ZAD. -- Which I can't quite recall at
the moment.
> Glide Bombs
This seems overly powerful. I'd allow any LAD, ZAD/ADS, PDS in range of
the glide bomb's flight path to fire, as if the glide bomb were a very slow
GMS. As for points cost, I'd suggest from 5 to 10 points in addition to the
DFO cost, IMHO.
> Crew Driven Vehicle Mounts (OK I don't know what the real name is and
Manual control? I'm not sure myself.
> Certain weapons may be controlled and fired by crewmen physically
I'd use Crew Quality minus one dice type for Close Range, and Crew Quality
minus two dice type for Medium Range, and no chance at Long Range. So a
Veteran crew (D10) fires at D8 at close range, and D6 for medium range.
> If the weapon in question is a vehicle mounted APSW, treat it as if it
I agree with this. Also the crew would be affected AP fire directed at them,
like infantry in cover.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
-><-
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Andrew Martin <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I like the idea, but I dislike the change in dice
1) The idea is that PDS is less effective against artillery than GMS, which
makes sense.
2)I like the idea of keying it to size, not number of chits. Artillery doesn't
shoot more rounds at infantry, the rounds they shoot are more effective.
> I'd use Crew Quality minus one dice type for Close
Eh? Then what would be the point of firecontrol? You're basically saying "Hey,
let's save a lot of points by making guys shooting over iron sights be better
than fire controls".
No crew, no matter how effective, trained, experienced, or elite, can be even
close to as effective with a Sherman's fire control system as they can be with
an Abrams fire control. Electronics matter, and matter greatly.
I like Beth's suggestion.
> I agree with this. Also the crew would be affected
??
If one guy is sticking his head out then the rest of the crew won't get killed
by small arms in return.
G'day,
> What about Firing main weapon and GMS in the same activation?
Hadn't really thought about that explicitly, but I'd definitely allow it for
Enhanced and Superior FC.
Cheers
> --- Randall Joiner <rljoiner@mindspring.com> wrote:
Your PDS isn't catching them after submunition dispersal, but before.
Otherwise they would be simply impossible to intercept.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Guided Missile Systems (GMS)
OK.
> Fire Control Systems (FCS)
*Shrug* I'm a big fan of the One Big Weapon System myself. You may design GW
tanks as you please. Allowing them to shoot all their guns almost makes up for
the disadvantage they have just through sheer physics. Mostly, the fact that
my OBWS will, all other things being equal, and ignoring HELs (as they just
suck, red chits only, FEH!) outrange you much.
> Point Defense Systems (PDS)
Like I said, I like.
> Glide Bombs
Oh, wow. Let's just make aircraft invulnerable. 60" is way too long.
> be within the front 180
At a +1 die shift due to the fact that it's big and
slow. IMNSHO.
> Crew Driven Vehicle Mounts (OK I don't know what the
Manual Fire Control??
I like it. Not enough to try and save the points by buying it, but I like it.
> 2)I like the idea of keying it to size, not number of
This just doesn't ring quite right with me... Anti-infantry rounds may
be
shot from the piece in the same number as anti-armor, but the number of
rounds that come out after the shot deploys are a whole lot
different... 100's to 1000's of anti-personel minelets (white
phosphorous,
etc.) vs. a handful of armor-piercing...
Rand.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:14 PM, Andrew Martin
> [SMTP:Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz] wrote:
Also:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/sg/dogfight.htm
I really should get around to cleaning up the bugs from the last playtest.
> G'day,
It would certainly help mech walkers to act like they are usually depicted in
fiction. Both barrels blazing as you send in a rack of missiles!
Jeremey
> At 7:12 PM -0700 9/11/02, John Atkinson wrote:
You come up with a stand off Missile system for aircraft, come up with a long
range system that works like ZAD that uses missiles or an HEL. Put that waaay
in back. Besides, 60" is reasonable for stand off weapons given its just 6
klicks. You can toss LGBs for miles.
In article <001101c2597c$49c0bce0$144a36d2@Garfield>, Andrew Martin
<Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz> writes
> Crew Driven Vehicle Mounts (OK I don't know what the real name is and
Crew _served_ vehicle mounts I think.
Cheers
G'day,
> Oh, wow. Let's just make aircraft invulnerable. 60"
Well for one I was trying to marry real ranges with game concepts (given my
pitiful lack of understanding of the former I may have goofed). I guess I was
also looking at through glasses coloured by where our DS houserules are
heading - off board missiles, dogfighting, I'll be using airships -
which opened up aircraft in many other ways. What range would you suggest
would be better?
> At a +1 die shift due to the fact that it's big and
OK. Which would match with Derek's comments about glide bombs being very
outdated tech.
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Hrm. 6 km isn't unreasonable realistically, I was thinking of it from the game
balance perspective. Which I think is solved by the fix below. You might want
to try it out a couple times to see. Use at
least 2-4 aircraft loaded with nothing but these
puppies to see if even silly numbers of 'em have an effect. IMNSHO.
John
> > At a +1 die shift due to the fact that it's big