Can you "mix" units in DS.
For instance, I have a unit of light tanks escorting 4 Supply trucks. Can I
make them one "unit" so the move at the same time? If I can may the LAD on the
tanks "cover" the trucks?
I'm still thinking Hammer's Slammers here. In one of the stories the tanks LAD
is being used to cover the dug in position of local infantry. Could this be
done in DS without buying a dedicated air defense vehicle?
> I'm still thinking Hammer's Slammers here. In one of the
Sounds reasonable to me--I can't see the attacking planes saying to
the tanks: "excuse me, I'm not attacking you, I'm after that infantry, stand
aside why don't you? There's a good lad."
. Bear in mind that I played DS once, about a year ago--my opinion is
I would agree. There is nothing in the rules prohibiting mixed vehicles in a
unit. Additionally, the allowance of splitting a unit during a battle presents
the ability to release the tanks into a single tactical unit if the need
arises.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 10:00 6/10/01 -0400, Roger Books wrote:
We allow this, basically I use it to attach FO parties (which belong to the
artillery units) to the tank and infantry units the artillery is supporting.
One of my quibbles with the LAD in DS 2 in 'self defense' only but (so far) I
have been too lazy to change it by a house rule. Of course my understanding
could be wrong.
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
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:11:30 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> I'm still thinking Hammer's Slammers here. In one of the
I also have seriously considered this for exactly the same reason. But are
mixed units and splitting units addressed at all in the rules (Getting ready
for church and can't take time to review rules currently.)
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
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:12:31 +1100 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 10:00 6/10/01 -0400, Roger Books wrote:
IIRC, the units (except Arty and Command (?)) are supposed to be 'pure' *but*
you could arm the trucks with LAD! Put in the Cargo spaces for a size 2 truck
(10 cap using 6 cargo) and you have "room" for an LAD (Consider it a 'Shotgun
guard" stinger team.) I also arm my NPC "Combat Supply" ammo carriers with
Self Defense weapons (But they aren't softskin trucks so that's a little
different.)
Combat Supply vehicles;
Size-1
Cargo x1, second APSW
Size-2
Cargo x2, LAD (or Basic/PDS) [or GMS/L I guess! Never done it...]
Size-3
Cargo x3, LAD and second APSW or PDS/Enhanced. ("Turret-1" possible,
say a DFFG or MDC to fight your way out of ambushes?)
Size-4
Cargo x5 [No weapons, depends on armor and escort)
Cargo x4, LAD and PDS/Basic, PDS/Superior. ("Turret-1" and a second
APSW?)
Size-5
Cargo x6, Second APSW various possibilities...
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
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> writes:
> Can you "mix" units in DS.
Where did I miss this in the rules? Splitting units? Show me, Please. You may
have made my local con game in November easier!
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
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:30:55 -0500 "Noel Weer" <noel.weer@verizon.net>
writes:
> I would agree. There is nothing in the rules prohibiting mixed
Just double checked. Unit Integrety is pretty specific: "The only
other time when elements can be outside integrity limits WITHOUT the unit
being Disorganized is when destroyed or disabled elements are `left
behind'..."
This is the first rule we threw away. Why? One damaged tank drops
the whole unit to 1/2 speed. In a crunch situation that's ludicrous.
Roger
> On 7-Oct-01 at 09:37, Glenn M Wilson (triphibious@juno.com) wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> Roger Books wrote:
> Just double checked. Unit Integrety is pretty specific: "The only
Uh?
As I understand it, "disabled" is a collective term for the damage results
"Damaged", "Mobility" and "Systems Down". You left an important bit out of the
above quote; there should be an "(eg: immobilised)" after "disabled".
AFAIK "eg." means "for example", so other types of non-fatal damage also
appear to be considered "disabling". (Had it said "(ie: immobilised)" it
would have meant "disabled = immobilised" exclusively, but it doesn't.)
So, well... if you throw the above rule out, you don't allow ANY vehicles
to be left behind for any reason, even if destroyed! :-)
As for mixed units, I agree with Noel: nothing in the rules prevents them.
Regards,
Back to the issue of the makeup of a unit composed of elements -
Page 7, last paragraph:
"...The key factor in any unit Organization is the UNIT, as this is integral
to the functioning of the game sequence; outside this, you are free to do
virtually what you want (provided of course, that (i) it is consistent with
whatever background you are setting the game in, and
(ii)
that your opponents are happy with it."
Page 7 left column, under "Force Organizations and Orders of Battle"
"The basic building-block of any force is a platoon-sized formation
known throughout the rules as a UNIT. Such units consist of a number of
individual ELEMENTS, each element being a single vehicle or a team of
infantry..."
Hence you could design a 7 vehicle unit (Klackons for those (Pre-GW)
Space Marines veterans) OR a unit as follows:
One size 4 APC/MICV, One Size 3 ADS, One Size 5 AFV, One size 2 TD, and
One Size 1 Transport VTOL. But would it be an effective unit? Only in
specialized usage I expect. And no, it doesn't appeal too much to me.
So, that expressed, what kind of mixed UNITs (having diverse ELEMENTS) might
have some tactical advantage over traditional homogeneous formations?
Remember, this is not a 'tailored' formation but a formation you would field
in 'general' combat situations? Your 'standard' TO&E as it were.
Gracias,
Yes. You can use mixed units.
The problem is that DS2 provides no method of splitting units (except for
disabled units). So the unit must stay within integrity distanct the whole
game.
However, if you and your opponent agree, you can use house rules to allow
units to split. If you do this you have to decide if it costs part of an
action.
In the timeframe of the game (15 min. per turn), it may be acceptable to split
a unit without penalty. Or you can decide
that splitting/rejoining costs part of an action (i.e. can
shoot or move and split/join but not all three).
Get with your opponent and decide what seems fair.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
At the level of command that DS2 uses, the splits sound reasonable. I'd
suggest as part of a house rule that the breakdown be designated during setup.
That limits the ad hoc splits and encourages planning.
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Brian Bell wrote:
> Yes. You can use mixed units.
G'day,
> So, that expressed, what kind of mixed UNITs
I don't know about for normal people, but for us Daleks having a unit lead up
by flame throwers (to torch the scenery and create smoke for cover), followed
by an APSW carrying version, a LAD carrying version, a couple of suicide units
(portable mines effectively), an element of standard Daleks (to rattle around
saying "exterminate, exterminate) and finally an engineering Dalek (to patch
up pieces as they go down) works wonders for us
;)
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> Hence you could design a 7 vehicle unit (Klackons for those (Pre-GW)
Exactly.
> But would it be an effective unit? Only in specialized usage I expect.
Bingo. The point is that you're free to experiment with this kind of mixed
units if you want to - and if it isn't effective, you don't have to keep
it
:-)
(In the above case, the VTOL will probably be quite restricted by the unit
integrity rules since it is so much faster than the other vehicles in the
unit...)
> And no, it doesn't appeal too much to me.
Then don't use them. Nothing forces you to <shrug>
> So, that expressed, what kind of mixed UNITs (having diverse ELEMENTS)
One obvious case is having some but not all vehicles in a unit equipped
with LAD (with the others carrying GMS/L or somesuch instead). While not
standard TOE organisations, cross-attachments of tanks to infantry on
the section level is fairly common for MOUT ops today; such task organisations
are best represented as mixed tank/IFV/infantry unit in DS2.
Later,
> On 7-Oct-01 at 16:28, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
it
> would have meant "disabled = immobilised" exclusively, but it
Our interpetation of that was different from yours. I like yours better though
so will lobby for playing that way.
> As for mixed units, I agree with Noel: nothing in the rules prevents
I'm not really after mixed units in my TO&E. What I am really after is
scenario driven mixed units. The tanks escorting trucks is a big example. I
don't want too move them as seperate units, that just doesn't feel right. It
also leaves the trucks open to attacks during the time period the escorting
tanks are seperated. If they are together targetting priorities mean the tanks
must die first.
> I'm not really after mixed units in my TO&E. What I am really after
Well, then, if you know what you want, do it.
> At 9:03 PM -0400 10/7/01, Brian Bell wrote:
Umm, how about...
If it is really needed insofar as a game occurrence is needed, have
the command element for that platoon/unit spend its firing action
directing that group of elements to do their task. Its the LT of that platoon
telling the PSG to take that tank and his APC back to meet up with the
Recovery team and medics, then hoof it back when things are fixed time
allowing.
> At 8:31 AM -0400 10/8/01, Roger Books wrote:
Having run in a few convoy escort scenarios, I suggest the following.
The group of trucks have been placed under the command of the platoon leader
for that tank platoon. His job is to get them from A to B in a reasonable
amount of time and intact.
The trucks are now subservient to the PltLdr and work with them right?
> At 7:00 AM +0200 10/8/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> One obvious case is having some but not all vehicles in a unit
Aye, and Armoured Cav take it a step further (especially with Vietnam).
Several APCs (AVAC 113s) with tanks (M47s). Something like
7-8 vehicles per platoon with infantry attached and organic. A very
potent fighting force in the jungle. Easily a match for a company or two of
infantry.
I routinely use mixed units in special situations. Some of my mechanized scout
units include two different types of armoured cars. This is backed by
historical precedent. Specifically by the British use of Saracens, Saladins
and Ferret's in concert as well as german use of different vehicles during
WWII for armed recce Half Tracks, ACs and sometimes a tank or two).