> Chen-Song Qin <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
Be prepared to give a little slack on vehicle capacity requirements. I
would allow +2 capacity points extra to make sure things fit properly.
Excess capacity can be assumed to be wasted or due to inefficiencies of the
design or allowance for future requirements. For the Challenger example, the
designers could have left room for a PDS to be developed in, say, the next ten
years. Or extra layers of armour.
> Also, I think the size should be relative depending on the game
While that could be done, remember that human beings can't be scaled down that
much. Some of the vehicles involved carry infantry and so can't be scaled like
you suggest. For example, if you design a Challenger as size
6,
the Warrior IFV comes out as size 3, with your scaling the Challenger is
reduced to size 3, the Warrior IFV is size 1.5? with dwarvish infantry? It's
probably better to have the huge grav tanks as being size 9 or there abouts.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
would
> be relevant. Until you do, it isn't. How tall is an M1? 7, 8 feet?
Stealth levels in DSII are also relative. One or two levels of stealth
translate to one or two shifts in signature die. A size 5 vehicle has a
signature of 1D4 to defend against fire control dice ranging from 1D6 to 1D10.
One level of stealth changes the D4 to D6; two levels, D4 to D8. A little bit
of DSII stealth makes a bit of difference. If you look closely at a M1, you
will notice that the front glacis plate is nearly flat. Most incoming shots
are going to strike the turret rather than the hull. The turret is flat plates
positioned to deflect incoming shots upwards and to the sides. Most of the
turret roof (except for sensors and MGs) is also flat, so as to not trap
incoming shots. So, I believe that an extra one or two levels of stealth are
justified for the DSII model of a M1 tank.
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
Just trying to match DSII game scale with real world weapon capabilities. See
also Tom Clancy's "Armoured Cavalry" book.
> why? if western fc is the best, make it Superior and only let everyone
Fire control is opposed with signature and terrain, not opponent's fire
control. Tom Clancy and several writers with experience on M1 tanks usually
quote 95% accuracy. In the Gulf war battle of 73 Easting, quoted by Tom
Clancy, seems to indicate a one shot, one kill rate. OpFor in the NTC in the
US, also quoted by Tom Clancy, again seems to confirm this. Tom Clancy also
quotes US troops in Iraq as saying the Iraqis were just like OpFor but a lot
easier!
> i'm not too happy about the stealth. is an m1a1 actually harder to hit
I'm uncertain. The very few M1s that were hit by Iraqi T72's were apparently
undamaged. I don't know how true this is, but Tom Clancy quotes that it took
another M1 to penetrate the turret armour of a M1. Even then, the tank had its
turret replaced and was back in action very soon. I regard stealth in DSII,
not as a electronic stealth field, but as more an efficiency factor to pack
more gear in a given volume.
> I've assumed that you can spend spare capacity on improving
I prefer using the existing armour level rather than the vehicle size.
Spending CP equal to the face's existing armour level allows a one step
improvement in armour level. I would also allow moving armour levels around
between faces. For example, moving, say, one level of top armour to front
armour.
> how about this for the generic mbt: size 4 (20 cp), armour 4 size 6 gun
You could do it this way, but this doesn't allow for light tanks that would
fit in at size 4. Or large armoured cars at size 3. Also, the US Marines AAV7
is definitely a size 5 vehicle. I personally wouldn't allow APFC charges for
any modern vehicles in DSII. Except, possible for one Russian T90 tank
variant, which I believe has active armour. I think you meant reactive armour.
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:
> While that could be done, remember that human beings can't be
That's a very good point. But what I do in this case is to make the warrior a
size 2 or even 3. When compared to a much larger vehicle, the size differences
between modern vehicles can appear to be a lot smaller. After all, the size
classes are relative, and the difference between classes is simply increased
in this case.
> Sorry, but BULLSHIT. Nothing personal. This is nonsense. M-1A1(HA)s
Giving respected sources is a great way to lend credence to your argument. You
would be better served if you enumerated yours rather than alluding to it.
Unless, of course, the title of your source is "One of the first US Army
official histories published in mass market form", a book with which most
people are no doubt unfamiliar.:)
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
Tom Clancy quotes directly from the people who were there in the Gulf War and
in the battle of 73 Easting in his book "Armoured Cavalry". But I'm always
open to more correct information and different points of view. Can you supply
the title, author and perhaps the ISBN of your source? Thanks!
Howdy!
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Sorry, but BULLSHIT. Nothing personal. This is nonsense. M-1A1(HA)s
What do we mean by destroyed? Tracked-out? Turret ring hit?
Crew casualties? Complete destruction?
You are right, though. The M1 is not an invincible juggernaut.
Howdy!
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Chris Lowrey wrote:
> Giving respected sources is a great way to lend credence to your
I'd like to get the title of John's source too. I'd like to see a more
accurate account of the M1's performance in the Gulf War. Armored Cav just
sounded... too propagandic at times, and so do the books by JFD about the
subject. (heh, heh, as if US Army official history would be less biased)
Howdy!
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:
> Tom Clancy quotes directly from the people who were there in the
But I'm
> always open to more correct information and different points of view.
Can
> you supply the title, author and perhaps the ISBN of your source?
Thanks!
Tom is a fiction writer. He also does well researched
"non-fiction". However, he is prone to inflating stories and adding a
little "propaganda" to the US military machine. Nothing wrong with that...:)
His sub book was rife with such "interesting
re-interpretations", as some of the Navy personnel call it. I know this
because I worked with people who built the subs and people who served in them.
Admittedly, there is a LOT that they cannot talk about, so some of Tom's stuff
is either gentle misinformation or just plain wrong guesstimations.
Tom Clancy is not a recognized expert on military matters. Ask any student of
military history or weapons. His books ARE a good read, though.
If you are interested, you can find a number of good technical books authored
by Steve J. Zaloga, who is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on
armour and the modern military. I can recommend wholeheartedly any of his New
Vanguard series of books, as well as a number of books that he wrote
concerning the European theatre of war (well, *proposed* European Theatre of
War...<G>) and the Middle East. His stuff on the Six Day War and the Yom
Kippur War was keen. I can supply titles and ISBNs, if you like. They are all
well done and good references.
Also of interest are the occasional publications from the Aberdeen Proving
Ground. Lots of good tech stuff, but hard to find. The Jane's Defense stuff
you already know about.
Laterish!
Ken
Howdy!
> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> > I have a book on M1s that covers a good chunk of the Gulf
The US Army's VII Corp had 9 M1s destroyed and 4 M1s damaged. In the entire
Desert Storm, 9 M1s were destroyed and 9 were damaged. No M1s were destroyed
by enemy fire, it was all fratricide and mines. At least 7
M1s took direct hits from 125mm rounds from T-72s. None penetrated and
none were disabled. In one instance, an M1 was hit by two 125mm projectiles
from 500m away; one hit the hull front and the other the turret front. The
result was no injury to the crew and no debilitating injury to the tank.
In one instance, an M1 was hit by 1 T-72. The M1 returned fire
and destroyed the T-72 before it's autoloader could cycle another round!
The nine M1s damaged were all considered repairable. Some were dmaged by 125mm
rounds and RPG rounds. No crew were killed while inside the tank. A number
were wounded when unbuttoned, though.
Laterish!
Ken
> The US Army's VII Corp had 9 M1s destroyed and 4 M1s damaged.
In
> the entire Desert Storm, 9 M1s were destroyed and 9 were damaged. No
Before professing expertise one does not actually have, and telling another
person "bullshit", everyone needs to check their own sources and realize that
they are not going to mesh 100%. Many people here have an agenda they are
pursuing. This is fine. Unfortunately, even "facts" are controvertible because
the fallible perceptions of people are involved. Are John's sources absolutely
correct? Are the other person's absolutely correct? Both deal with secondary
sources, and are therefore suspect.
Were you there, John, and did you see it? If not, you cannot proclaim your
sources to be absolutely correct in all aspects. Question your sources like
you question those of the person you disagree with. Ten people in the same
room, witnessing the same crime, will always result in ten different stories.
[quoted original message omitted]
Ease up a little John or please take the rants off-line. When people
start the use of profanity to support the argument I think your argument is
lost.
Up until the personal attacks I have been amused at the defence and attack on
the M1 in teh Gulf War but a little civility isn't too much to ask??
[quoted original message omitted]
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
> The US Army's VII Corp had 9 M1s destroyed and 4 M1s damaged.
In
> the entire Desert Storm, 9 M1s were destroyed and 9 were damaged. No
Source? Considering I just posted details of four M1A1(HA)s being knocked out
by enemy action, I'd say whereever you got your info is a little unreliable.
Or maybe using an interesting definition of knocked out.
> M1s took direct hits from 125mm rounds from T-72s. None penetrated
Again, bullshit. Already posted source. You do the same. Cite source, or
retract.
> projectiles from 500m away; one hit the hull front and the other the
Frontal arc.
> In one instance, an M1 was hit by 1 T-72. The M1 returned
Frontal arc.
> Chris Lowrey wrote:
> Before professing expertise one does not actually have, and telling
Who said expertise? I said I've got a decent source, while I don't think he
does.
> person "bullshit", everyone needs to check their own sources and
Are John's sources more reliable? Well, when the US Army paints a more
negative picture than Tom Clancy or other civillians, I tend to believe US
Army.
Greetings!
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
Steve Zaloga. M1 Abrams (1982-1992). New Vanguard. 1993.
ISBN 1-85532-283-8
There is some great ancillary info in a back issue of Jane's Defense Weekly
about 2 years back. The issue should be on their website.
The information was drawn from official US Army documents, members of the VII
Corp, General Dynamics, Aberdeen Proving Ground, etc.
Official US sources indicate that there were 18 cases of combat damage to
M1A1s. Nine were classed as permanent losses, all due to fratricide. Nine
other were damaged by RPGs, mines, etc. and were 'considered' repairable.
> Again, bullshit. Already posted source. You do the same. Cite
The source is above. Information is culled from official military and civilian
sources and accounts.
What source are you taking your data from? Clancy?
Laterish!
Ken
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
> The information was drawn from official US Army documents,
Ah, bingo! "Permenant Losses". That's an interesting term. I tend to think of
kills (and so does the source I was reading) as no longer capable of fighting
without serious maintinence. Yeah, you can take a tank which has a 125mm round
into the ammo bays, replace the electronics, clean it out, replace the ammo
bays, repaint it, and call it "repairable", but if the tank can't fight any
more, then it's a kill to me (and to whoever is shooting at it). This was
common practice in
WWII--Shermans would get knocked out, brew up, burn, be recovered,
cleaned out, repaired, and sent back into the line. But they still count as
being "killed".
Like I said, either misinformed or using a really screwy definition of killed.
If you define "killed" as "incapable of moving or fighting" then you have the
majority of "killed" vehicles being repairable in the long term. But you gotta
win in the short term to worry about the long term.
> What source are you taking your data from? Clancy?
Already posted.
Chris spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Were you there, John, and did you see it? If not, you cannot proclaim
Even then, your own involvement makes your view suspect. No human has total
awareness, and stress has strange ways to affect memory. Even
participants can't be counted on - this is a known fact in police
work and in historical recountings.
Question your sources like
> you question those of the person you disagree with. Ten people in the
Someone (I don't know who), said that in any situation there are
three sides - your side, my side, and the truth. This aphorism points
out that neither side will have 'the truth'. It is, perhaps, ephemeral and
inaccessable. The best one can hope for is, by having a number of independent
but agreeing sources, come up with a plausible
accounting - but to call it the TRUTH is really stretching things.
(In a similar vein this has went pretty far OT, and if JW was watching, he'd
be telling us so).
Tom.
/************************************************
Greetings!
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Ah, bingo! "Permenant Losses". That's an interesting term. I tend
I was fairly clear in my earlier posts; Nine were considered permanent losses,
nine were considered "recoverable". The definition of "kill" varies between
writers, techs at Aberdeen, techs at the VII Corp, etc.
In an earlier message, you posted that M1A1(HA)s were taken
out by T-62, T-72, BMPs, RPGs, etc. I have been unable to find this
anywhere in post-Gulf reports (Zaloga's books, Jane's, Journal of
Military Ordnance, etc.). There were seven known hits from a 125mm onto M1A1s;
none of them penetrated. Several of the "damaged" M1A1s *may* have been hit by
125mm, but most could be attributed to mines (and one case of RPG fire). Some
of these M1A1s were classed as "severely damaged".
The BM15 APFSDS round (part of the 3UBM7 round) and the 9M119
"Svir" guided rocket, both fired from the T-72 are *unable* to penetrate
the M1A1(HA) from the frontal and portions of the side arc. However, AARs and
tech reports raised the possibility that some of the "damaged" and "severely
damaged" M1A1(HA) were struck by this round from a side or rear angle. They
were unsure. Most of the known damage was from mines (based on crew accounts).
> Like I said, either misinformed or using a really screwy definition
I was taking the terminology directly from Jane's and Zaloga. In several
cases, "damaged" M1A1s were able to shoot back or continue fighting. Thus,
they were not defined as "kills", only"damaged" and considered "repairable".
Laterish!
Ken
As part of the shooting at tanks in the Gulf War series I am reminded of the
British Scorpion recon tank that was hit by an M1. The shot went through the
tank wounding one crewman and seriously wounding another, the Scorpion bugged
back to base and arrived as a news crew was doing a live feed back to Britain.
Why did the M1 shoot at the Scorpion? Because the Iraqis had captured a small
number (three I believe) from the Iranians in the previous Gulf War.
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
> In an earlier message, you posted that M1A1(HA)s were taken
"As TF 1-37th Armor crossed over the ridge into the heart of the
Iraqi
defensive zone, the Iraqi commander's carefully disposed rear-slope
defense stripped Dyer's tanks of their range advantage. Within 1,000
meters, a row of dug-in T-72s and BMPs suddenly appeared below the
crest. All were hull--down in prepared positions behind thick dirt
walls. Now the Americans were well within Iraqi killing range, and
although the Soviet-made night sights were markedly inferior, things
could still get very dicey. So many Iraqi vehicles were burning around the
target that areas of the battlefiled were as bright as day. Again, the
American thermal sights began to wash out. The Iraqi defender was also clever
enough to build his
rear-slope
defense behind a streatch of particularly rugged terrain, which he
liberally scattered with excellent Ialian-made antitank mines. After
cresting the ridge, Dyer's tanks found themselves not only exposed, but
considerably slowed. Dyer was trying to keep C Company on-line when
Bravo 6 called to tell him that tank Bravo 23 had hit a mine and lost its
engine. The tank commander still had battery power, however, and would keep
fighting until the batallion trains arrived. Minutes later he go the report
that Sergeant Steede's Delta 24 had been knocked out with an unkown number of
casualties.
The battle had suddenly turned grim. A T-72 round had hit Bravo
23 in
the rear exhaust exits. ANother T-72 bypassed by D Company had killed
Steede's tank. Bravo 23 took another hit from its amubsher in the back of its
turret. The Iraqi sabot blew through the armor into the compartmented ammo
storage area and set off an enormuous explosion as
many of the 30-odd main-gun rounds that were left erupted in white-hot
flames. The M-1 design came through, however. The blast escaped
through the blow-out panels in the top turet, thus venting the explosion
away from the crew compartment. THe Halon suppression system kept the fire out
long enoughfor the crew to scramble to safety. One of C
Compnay'splatoon leaders, Lieutenant Al Alba, killed the T-72 and BMP
that had fired the lethal shots. Taking command of the company, ALba had
combat lifesavers treat the wounded, then loaded both crws atop his turret and
continued to attack."
"and although they lost four tanks in the process, no Americans had died."
---Certain Victory, by Brigadier General Robert H.
Scales, Jr., USA Brassey's, 1994 Originall published: Office of the Chief of
Staff, United States Army, 1993.
The above paragraphs describe the fight between TF 1-37th Armored, 3rd
Brigade, 1st Armored Division and elementsof the Tawakalna Republican Guards
division. Sources in the bibliography include a page and a half of names in
small print listed as "Interviews," including one SFC Anthony Steede, who was
commanding Delta 24 when "a 125mm round from the
T-72 blew through the turret ring and into the crew compartment." 58
official government documents, including AARs of numerous units, unit
logs and diaries, the US Army's offical after-action review, and a host
of Articles, Books, Manuscripts, and periodicals. Offical documents tend to
have a more comprehensive picture than some civillian, however learned he may
be. What's Zaloga's source (presuming he put a bibliography in the book you're
reading)?
> Ordnance, etc.). There were seven known hits from a 125mm onto M1A1s;
I just handed you more than 7 'known hits' from 125mm rounds.
> The BM15 APFSDS round (part of the 3UBM7 round) and the 9M119
Frontal and portions of the side arc? News flash--the enemy isn't
always obliging enough to refrain from shooting up the rear and sides.
> I was taking the terminology directly from Jane's and Zaloga.
In
> several cases, "damaged" M1A1s were able to shoot back or continue
Shooting, it's not a kill. When the crew bails out and the ammunition is
cooking off, then it's a kill.
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
load of irrelevant stuff cut out (as it SHOULD be)
> John M. Atkinson
Look guys this type of get at one another mails is VERY tiresome to read., If
I may suggest, you John crop up frequently in these types of mails. I guess
its just your style of doing things, but in general TO EVERYONE, can we get
this sort of stuff off the list and onto private email?
I realize there are currently doubts about the future of this list but really
I am getting heartily fed up of opening my mail and getting 30 or so
completely irrelevant mails. OK I realize some of you guys want to talk
background and modern references and can it be built stuff but some of us
don't want to read it. So I can't really kick off too much as I don't pay for
my mail, but despite this the 'signal to noise ratio is becoming
ridiculous. I am seriously considering un-subbing.
Can we not just talk about playing GAMES WITH TOY SOLDIERS/SPACESHIPS
instead of the load of irrelevant rubbish which is becoming the mailing list.
If you guys really want to talk about this stuff then why not get yourselves
onto one of the news groups more germain to it than this list.
My apologies to all for this rant, if anyone has issues which they would like
to raise with me PLEASE MAIL ME PRIVATELY.
<<Can we not just talk about playing GAMES WITH TOY SOLDIERS/SPACESHIPS
instead of the load of irrelevant rubbish which is becoming the mailing list.
If you guys really want to talk about this stuff then why not get yourselves
onto one of the news groups more germain to it than this list.
My apologies to all for this rant, if anyone has issues which they would like
to raise with me PLEASE MAIL ME PRIVATELY. >>
I think I have to say Amen! and Hallelujah! Notes on how modern day vehicles
would be expressed in DS and SG - that's okay. Calling each other
scurrulous names and impugning each other's sources and lineage is DEFINITELY
NOT okay.
Cool that - make your comments appropriate to science-fiction gaming and
we're all in fat city.
Greetings!
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, The cat that walks by Himself wrote:
> As part of the shooting at tanks in the Gulf War series I am reminded
Doh!
I am amazed by the amount of fratricide in the Gulf. A total of 81 soldiers
and 77% of US Army materiel losses were due to friendly fire incidents.
They've been talking about IFF measures for a while, but I guess interest has
REALLY stepped up... <g>.
Later!
Ken
> [quoted text omitted]
Greetings!
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> "As TF 1-37th Armor crossed over the ridge into the heart of the
<snip>
I should have been more specific (my fault); what sources have
T-62s "damaging" or "destroying" M1A1s?
> the rear exhaust exits. ANother T-72 bypassed by D Company had killed
The AARs of Aberdeen and the US Army are unsure of exactly what "damaged" the
M1A1s. There was debate about this. The acount you post is interesting.
> The above paragraphs describe the fight between TF 1-37th Armored, 3rd
Zaloga always includes sources. He is one of the world's foremost armour
historians, had published over 20 books, and has writen articles in the
Journal of Military Ordnance, has written for Jane's, and lectures for the US
military. The sources he cites for the book that I
am referring to include post-war data from US Army, Aberdeen, and
General Dynamics Land Systems. He also cites interviews with a number of
people from the VII Corp, 24th Infantry, 3rd Armoured, etc.
The bulk of his "damage" and "destroyed" data comes from the US Army, GD, and
Aberdeen, who pulled apart the damaged vehicles and
conducted post-combat analyses. You figure that they get the whole
picture that way....
> I just handed you more than 7 'known hits' from 125mm rounds.
Assuming, of course, that they KNEW what hit them. US Army records records
some of these hits as due to friendly fire, often only accounted for long
after the battle was over.
> > The BM15 APFSDS round (part of the 3UBM7 round) and the
However, AARs
> Frontal and portions of the side arc? News flash--the enemy isn't
No kidding. I was respoding to your initial shock at my post concerning
frontal and side hits of 125mm rounds that failed to penetrate the M1A1.
> Shooting, it's not a kill. When the crew bails out and the ammunition
Yes. And when the crew bails out and the ammunition is cooking off, it was
mostly a case of friendly fire. Then it's fratricide.
Laterish!
Ken
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
> I am amazed by the amount of fratricide in the Gulf.
A total of
> 81 soldiers and 77% of US Army materiel losses were due to friendly
Fratricide in the Gulf War wasn't as terrible as most people think. It was
just way more noticable because of the lack of total casualities.
To twist this thread back to DS, I'm very cuious about the game's fire control
systems. Where would a modern tank lie in the Basic, Enhanced, and Advanced
order of things? The reason why I ask is because I'm seriously thinking about
trying to convert an ancient game called "Laser and Sabot" to DS. LS was a
minis game that featured an alien invasion during the early 90's. I didn't
care much for the game as it stood, but I loved the concept. The Aliens used
'Hover Armor'... vehicles that
used a sort of contra-grav drive. They were fast, but thinly armored.
Their guns were somewhat better than Terran guns, but not by much.
In that game I'm thinking about using this:
Russian T-62 and older tanks: Basic FC
Modern US and NATO tanks, plus T-72 and better Soviet: Intermediate
Alien Hov Armor: Advanced
All Russian tanks and Western tanks (up to the 70's) use HVCs Modern Western
tanks use HKPs up to class 4 Aliens use HELs, MDCs, and DFFGs.
Both sides use missiles, however Terran units my only use Enhanced and Basic
for their missiles. SLAMs are only used by helecopters.
What do ya'll think?
> At 19:56 21/11/98 -0600, you wrote:
Still bad if you are on the recieveing end. Friendly fire -
aint!
> To twist this thread back to DS, I'm very cuious about the game's fire
vehicles that
> used a sort of contra-grav drive. They were fast, but thinly armored.
Their guns
> were somewhat better than Terran guns, but not by much.
The Modern Tanks thread basically came to this conclusion but it looks about
right for this sort of set up. As a balancer you could allow the Earthies to
have Heavy Artillery, this being things like the Russian 240mm mortar and
Scuds and their ilk, but the aliens have only up to Medium. Ortillery would be
nasty. Be interesting to see the Aliens (very small force) take on the
Russians
(HUGE).
Greetings!
> On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, Randall Case wrote:
> Fratricide in the Gulf War wasn't as terrible as most people think. It
This is true...:)
> To twist this thread back to DS, I'm very cuious about the game's fire
vehicles that
> used a sort of contra-grav drive. They were fast, but thinly armored.
Their guns
> were somewhat better than Terran guns, but not by much.
Never heard of it. Was it a miniatures game or board game. Sounds like a hoot!
> Russian T-62 and older tanks: Basic FC
Looks reasonable. I guess you could argue that WWII would use d4
(sub-BASIC), as they often had to stop to get accurate shots. A lot of
the Russian stuff (T-55, T-62, etc.) from the '60s and early 70's had
better firecons, but often doctrine advised them to stop for accurate shots.
> Both sides use missiles, however Terran units my only use Enhanced and
Sounds keen!
Laterish!
Ken
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> Still bad if you are on the recieveing end. Friendly fire -
No arguments here. I'm just glad that my unit escaped most of that. We did
have 2 KIAs result from a couple of guys who got dumb and played with DPICM
submunitons.
One guy was killed instantly- his arm was blown off. The other was too
close to him and had numerous fragments pierce his chest, slashing several
arteries and causing him to bleed to death. The medics did their best for him,
but it was too much for them to handle. Things you can never forget.
Laser and Sabot was put out by a tiny game company called Starchilde
Publications. It supports a RPG called Domination (which deals with the
invasion). Both systems were okay, but I know of much better games out there
to play. Laser and Sabot is a
minis game which at one time actually had minis out for it (285-300). I
don't have any of the minis, but some of my FASA TOG and Commonwealth grav
tanks look very close, and I have a swarm of US and British micro armor. Might
see how a mix
Anglo-American battlegroup does against aliens : )
> Ortillery would be nasty.
Oddly enough, that is the only artillery the aliens used:)
> Be interesting to see the Aliens (very small force) take on
I think the Aliens would be shredded... yeah, what they hit they will kill,
but swarms of Russian tanks will overwhelm them, at least with the fire
controls in the game. An advanced fire con results in better hitting, but
heck... no greater rate of fire!
I'm thinking about allowing vehicles to fire multiple times:
Basic: 1 shot per turn/activation
Enhanced: 2 shots
Advanced: 3 shots + free activation on overwatch. This allows the
vehicle to fire its main weapon and still get an activation to move (no fires
though)
That seems right to me:)
> Randall Case <tgunner@earthlink.net> wrote:
You could also see my multiple shots procedure for DSII here:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/MULTI.HTM
Alternatively, if not moving at all, allow units to fire twice.
> No arguments here. I'm just glad that my unit escaped most of that. We
Having seen "Saving Private Ryan" last week and then reading the above it
would seem that someone is deliberately shaking me out of complacency about
combat. None of the members of my family have ever spoken about what they saw.
Makes you kind and stop and think about the games we play and what they would
mean if real.
> I'm thinking about allowing vehicles to fire multiple times:
At three shots per activation the whoever gets Superior firecon is going to
annihilate their enemy. Might be better to give them 2 (ehanced) or 3
(superior) shots if they don't move. Then allow the Superior ones to have 2
shots and the free overwatch.