[DS, maybee SG] Odd questions

1) Anybody ever use multiple PDS's to defend AFV?

2) Anyone ever put GMS/H and GMS/L on the same AFV?

Yes I am playing with designs for the NPC (missile happy!) and their
traditional foes...

Gracias,

Answers:
1) Only on an early attempt at an Ogre cross-over. I guess I always
assumed that it was illegal (but I could be wrong). 2) No. Since they are
different systems, You could not fire them as a
twin-mount. There seems very little reason to do mount both. If you
could fire the Light, you could fire the Heavy, so why use the lighter
missile?

-----
Brian Bell

> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:

Well if one was a SAM and the other a TOW that would make sense.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:48:46 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:

I can't find it explicitly but I assume it was just another 'nobody in their
right mind would do that' thing...

Since I'm not, in my right mind that is, I want to figure out what to do if i
choose to let my "traditional enemy" to the NPC (missile Happy types) mount
multiple PDS's for sa scenario.

I am going to assume, for simplicity sake, that this is done to a MICV. The
Foes would be RRR (Uses HKP and Reactive armor) NEA (Uses MDC). For simplicity
sake, let us posit an infantry heavy counter attack on a position taken 24
hours ago. The attackers will be NEA with a couple
platoons of a new MICV (Size 4: FT x 2, PDS/Enh x 2, and a turret MDC/2
-
down from an 'standard' Heavy MICV with FT x 2, MDC/3, and only one
PDS.)

The previously pushed out NEA defenders reported that the force moved into the
position was supported by a platoon of 4 Condor AT (Size 5, 5 x
GMS/H, FT x 1-  one of them most likely a GMS/L team - one cap point
unused) and a company of 4 Eagle AT (Size 4. 4 x GMS/H, Ft x 1 (as
above), with the majority of the surviving attackers being Red Brocket
MICV (Size 3, FT x 2, Turreted HEL/1 and GMS/H) and very few (can we say
ouch!) Fox AFV (Size 2, GMS/H and DFFG/2 turret.)  None of the larger
Copperhead Assault Tanks (Size 4, FT x 2, GMS/H x 3) are believed to
have survived the attack (but some of those FT's might have.)

Should I have the double PDS's:

1) Roll two dice (seems dicey, [pardon the pun] and maybe over effective) 2)
Bump the PDS die up one type
3) allow a re-roll if the GMS penetrated the first PDS and ECM...

> 2) No. Since they are different systems, You could not fire them as a

No, they are both the same system, just as a MDC/1 and a MDC/5 are the
same system. This differs from my other 'off the wall' idea of mixed design
weapons in a turret. A little bit. And Jon allowed that a house
rule that a HEL/1 and a DFFG/5 in the same turret could be fired at the
same target was not entirely crazy. <grin>

Why would you do this? Well, let's give you an example:

The difference between the standard smaller NPC recon vehicles -
Chipmunk
and the Squirrel -   are in the 'self-defense' weapons (well, that's the
doctrine, shoot only if you are spotted... then run like crazy!)

I give double points to the opponent who knocks out NPC Recon vehicles; that's
so the NPC player treats them with the respect and care they deserve. So they
should be hidden in terrain alloqing them freedom to act as F.O.'s without
getting in fire fights. Esoecially since more then one or two to a task force
is highly unusual (the latter in defense
almost always/only.)

Chipmunk:
Size 2 - GMS/L, FT x 1 (F.O.), and a PDS/Sup.

Squirrel:
Size 2 - GMS/H, FT x 1 (F.O.) and a PDS/Bas

Say one of the constituent tribes/nations of the NPC decides in a Recon
with a little more firepower and less defense is 'better' against their RRR
neighbors (who needs PDS's for HKP armed foes?) so they come up with:

Gopher:
Size 2 - GMS/H, GMS/L, and FT x 1 (F.O.)

The GMS/H is used for ranges from 36.1 to 48 inches but up close they
volley fire both GMS's (same type of system - as listed on pages 8 & 9
as
RFAC, HVC, HKP, MDC, HEL, DFFG, GMS, and SLAM.)   The /L and /H are
**size** delimiters, not system differences any more then MDC/5 is a
different kind of system from a MDC/4 or /3, /2, /1.

Voila', a vehicle mounting two sizes of the same weapon. And with a design
'history' to the choice.

Ever wonder from what twisted recess of my mind come these ideas?

Bur so far, I have not fielded any of these designs in a game to check play
balance.

And won't until after the November con locally (There I will be trying to
recruit interest so will use 'normal' vehicle designs. Of course, that's
'normal' in my mind and campaign history.)

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

> -----

G'day Glenn,

We actually have a house rule (I think Derek has mentioned this before) where
we let all GMS on a vehicle (whether all light, heavy or a mix) fire at once
and they can go at separate targets (if the player wants them
to).
The logic being that they're fire and forget so don't need control from the
vehicle. In the same vein we also say any firer's systems down chits pulled
for GMS are for that missile only and represent its guidance system going
down, or the missile malfunctioning or being decoyed away. Its worked for us
and hasn't caused any problems.

Cheers

> Glenn Wilson wrote:

> >2) No. Since they are different systems, You could not fire them as a

A MDC/1 and a MDC/5 are NOT "the same system" according to the standard
DS2
rules. This is explicitly stated on DS2 p.18, right-hand column, second
paragraf from the bottom. In order to fire two weapons from a single vehicle
in a single activation, they need to be the same type *and class*.

Regards,

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:09:46 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:

This is correctly quoted. In "straight' DS2 one activation, one weapon
system/size.

In order to fire two weapons from a single
> vehicle in a single activation, they need to be the same type *and

See below.

> Regards,

Funny, I look at page 8 where the label clearly says DIRECT FIRE WEAPONS
SYSTEMS (no shout, just a sub for Boldface type which I don't have...)

Under it are the words "...a number of systems are described below..."
followed by (Capitals for Bold face type again)

1) RAPID FIRE AUTO CANNONS (RFACS)... 2) HIGH VELOCITY CANNONS (HVCS)... 3)
HYPER KINETIC PENETRATORS (HKPS)... 4) MASS DRIVER CANNONS (MDCS)... 5) HIGH
ENERGY LASERS (HELS)... 6) DIRECT FIRE FUSION GUNS (DFFGS)... 7) GUIDED
MISSILE SYSTEMS (GMS)...
8) SALVO-LAUNCHED MISSILE PACKS (SLAMS)...

Systems. There is no distinction between sizes of a system there.

Your point, however, is taken also from page 32 (caps for Bold face)

MULTIPLE WEAPON MOUNTS

where a multiple weapon mount *is* described (all bold face, caps as caps) as

"...two (or more) weapons of the same type and class..."

where the assumption would logically be that "...type and class..." should be
[ "...size and system..." or, more likely] "...system and
size..."  as the example "...two HKP/3s..." implies.  The editor must
have missed that... <grin>

This indeed also reinforces that you cannot (without a house rule) use a
HEL/1 and a DFFG/5 or use a HVC/5 and RFAC/1 in the same turret.  This
little bit of fluff (one of the few areas I *really disagree* with Jon
T.'s design of DS2 - my favorite SF Battle rules - and took his advice
and added a house rule) simply makes no sense, IMO, except to perhaps control
munchkinism. I would like to hear John's logic in this case but it is not a
area where I want to debate or argue (just make a house rule <grin>) with
anyone. Just curiousity.

The cases in my campaign where I bypass this is always at a cost and with a
"historical" reasoning. I would not expect that kind of freedom in a
tournament or non-campaign game.  But it is as frustrating as (change
subject alert) not being able to do what historically was done in Vietnam
- fire the APSW (MG) and the Main Gun (90mm) at infantry in the  same
(1-15 minute) turn.

Back to the original subject.

In straight DS2 you *can* design such a turret but not fire both at the same
time. And (there*is* at least one valid design reason for that!) A
DFFG/4 or 5 main weapon and a long range (36") anti-infantry weapon coax
mounted for one example.

And systems, class, and size seem to be used intermittently interchangeably.
<g>

Gracias,

> Glenn wrote:

No. I feel 1 PDS and 1 ECM system is enough for most vehicles. I have
considered putting PDS and ZAD on the same vehicle.

> 2) Anyone ever put GMS/H and GMS/L on the same AFV?

No. I feel it would add too much complexity to logistics for the unit.

> Yes I am playing with designs for the NPC (missile happy!) and their

My favourite design is VSC 2, twin GMS/H in a turret (6 + 4 capacity),
hi-mobility wheeled. It's based on LAV with twin TOW launcher turret.

A variant is the same vehicle fitted with vertically mounted GMS (firing
upwards!), hiding behind a hill and remotely steering the GMS on to the
target, which is designated by a FO 1/2 team hiding on the crest of the
hill. A similar concept to the US Navy Arsenal ship that carries cruise
missiles as armanent. Naturally, this requires a few house rules.

> Glenn Wilson wrote:

> >> >2) No. Since they are different systems, You could not fire them

> In order to fire two weapons from a single

No? That's funny - when I read the bitz you snipped from the above
quote, I see:

"The RFAC is available in size classes 1 and 2 only." "HVCs are available in
size classes 3 to 5;..." "HKPs are available in size classes 3 to 5,..."

...etc. Each of the weapon type descriptions mentions the size classes in
which weapons of that type are available.

The concept of different weapon Size Classes is defined in the section
appropriately named "WEAPON SIZE CLASSES" on p.8, immediately before the

section you're quoting. This section begins: "Weapons are defined by Size
Classes in much the same way as vehicle sizes,...".

> Your point, however, is taken also from page 32 (caps for Bold face)

Bingo. This is exactly the same phrasing as is used on p.18.

> where the assumption would logically be that "...type and class..."

Yep. It should say "type and size class" (though in block letters) both here
and on p.18. The terms "size class" and "size" are used interchangably
throughout the rules, but neither is interchangable with "type".

> The cases in my campaign where I bypass this is always at a cost and

In the 'Nam this fire usually occurred at Close Assault range, so is only
rarely covered by the direct-fire rules :-/

> Back to the original subject.
A
> DFFG/4 or 5 main weapon and a long range (36") anti-infantry weapon

No, "size class", "size" and "class" are used interchangably and not
surprisingly refer to the size class (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5; occasionally 6 or
7)
of the weapon or vehicle (as defined in the left-hand column of p.8).
"Type" consistently refers to the operating principle (HEL, RFAC etc.) of a
weapon or tranny. A "weapon system" is one single gun or launcher, and is
completely defined by specifying its size class and its type.

Regards,