[ds] Ogres

"Not half as pissed as I'm going to be if you don't get off your butt &
charge, soldier..." second last words of Major Splatterhorn, right before
yelling "Charge!"

'Neath Southern Skies

[quoted original message omitted]

> Thomas Anderson wrote:
In my conversions of modern vehicles: Jeeps & missile carriers are size 1;
M113 APC is size 2; M2A3 Bradley IFV and Warrior IFV are size 3; M60 Tank is
about size 4;
M1 Tank is size 5 - possibly size 6;
US Marines "AmTrak" APC is size 5 - due to infantry team capacity.

I use this rule of thumb: Divide vehicle weight by 10 tons to get vehicle size
class.

Reality check. The target size of an Abrams is smaller then a M60, so
shouldn't the class size be at most the same???

> Andrew & Alex wrote:

> Imre A. Szabo <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
DSII Vehicle size class measures volume or weight. It then becomes a
signature. Also, the M60 is one to two generations older than M1.

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> Reality check. The target size of an Abrams is smaller then a M60, so

Is the M1 really smaller than the M60? I'm willing to grant you that the M1 is
shorter, but "smaller"? I guess what I'm saying is that having seen both, I
never thought of the M1 as being smaller than the M60.

Granted, I was a grunt, so I'm not the expert. I just know that I stayed the
heck away from them when the treadheads were driving. They don't call
us "crunchies" for nothing.  :-)

Howdy!

> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> In my conversions of modern vehicles:

So a German WWII Maus is Size 18 (188 tons)...:)

Simple formulae fall apart in vehicle size estimations. Common
sense, real-world design philosophy, and a little guesstimation work a
LOT better.

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> >Reality check. The target size of an Abrams is smaller then a M60,

The M1 is only 5 tons heavier than the later M60s. The M1 is a bit shorter,
but the other dimensions are about the same.

M1 M60 Hull Length 7.98m 6.9m Width 3.66m 3.63m Height 2.89m 3.27m
Tonnage         57,000kg-ish            52,000kg-ish

Later,

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Colfox wrote:

> > Reality check. The target size of an Abrams is smaller then a M60,

Having crawled all over the two, the M1 seems more massive, but it is only
slightly "larger". It is definately shorter!

> Granted, I was a grunt, so I'm not the expert. I just know that I

I had the chance to play around dozens of modern tanks about 8
years ago, but I spent almost all of my time with the WWII-era ones.
Now that I am into modern warfare, I keep kicking myself...

        Ken

> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> I use this rule of thumb:

a challenger 2, the current british mbt, weighs in at 62.5 tonnes. a size 6
vehicle? i don't think so.

of course, the weight-to-size scale you use for using ds2 to simulate
modern warfare is not necessarily the same scale you use for future warfare,
since the largest modern vehicles are smaller than the largest future
vehicles. if a challenger 2 or m1a1 turned up in 2160, it would be
size 3. in your modern-day rules, it might well be size 5.

are these the same rules that give the m1a1 an hkp? in terms of how an hkp is
described in ds2, there is no way this is true. however, if you are simulating
modern day and simply wish for a 'better hvc' to give
high-tech
armies like the usa and uk, then the hkp is the thing.

basically, a modern mbt of any make in the future setting is going to be a
size 3, armour 2 (if chobham - not as good as future armour) or 1 (if
steel), CFE, slow (possibly fast) tracked, hvc/3 in turret, and three
wasted space due to lack of minaturisation.

proposed houseish rule: ancient vehicles (eg modern in future, ww2 in modern)
only get 4 x size cp to account for their lack of miniaturised
parts relative to up-to-date vehicles.

Tom

> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

I agree here - a Bradley IFV is heavier than an M113 because it is
denser (thicker armour). It isn't really bigger, and an M113 holds more
troops. Can you not have something like:

size 3 vehicle, with size 2 equivalent armour

> Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
    Agreed. This is what my rule of thumb is used for - to get the
initial starting point for vehicle size class (VSC). For the Maus, this
formula is still effective, in that the DSII model of a Maus has to have a VSC
of at least 6, and probably a lot higher! For the several hundred vehicles in
Jane's Tank Recognition guide, this rule of thumb is very effective.

> Thomas Anderson wrote:
My rule of thumb indicates a size 6 vehicle. That's a good starting
point for a design. I would feel free to modify the VSC +/- 1 to better
simulate the real world vehicle.

> of course, the weight-to-size scale you use for using ds2 to simulate
Actually, they would probably be very similar sizes. Tanks do have to fit onto
trains, roads and, in future, space ship hulls. Transport is more a
limiting factor than near future, non-nanotech, tech level.

> are these the same rules that give the m1a1 an hkp? in terms of how an
A HVC with the range of HKP is probably the best alternative.

> basically, a modern mbt of any make in the future setting is going to
I disagree. But each to his own. I think modern vehicles in a future setting
would be using HVC and basic firecontrol, would be of similar sizes,
but would be slower to react - perhaps needing to make a threat test
before
moving or firing - due to poorer communications.

> proposed houseish rule: ancient vehicles (eg modern in future, ww2 in
Well, I've found that the standard 5 × VSC is pretty accurate for most WWII
and Modern vehicles, once the right vehicle size class is found.

> Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@idirect.com> wrote:

Well, according to Jane's Tank Recognition Guide, the Bradley IFV is heavier
and larger than the M113. According to my rule of thumb and my design, the
M113 is VSC:2 and the Bradley is VSC:3. The reason why the Bradley holds less
troops than the M113, is because
the Bradley has a turret holding a 25mm autocannon (DSII RFAC/1) and a
twin TOW ATGW launcher. These take up space. In my DSII design, the Bradley
ends up like this: VSC:3, Armour 3R, CFE, Fast Tracked, River Amphibious;
Extra APSW, RFAC/1, enhanced FC, GMS/L Basic, 2 × (3 man Infantry
teams). In my DSII design, the M113 (Zelda) looks like this: VSC:2, Armour 2R,
CFE, Slow Tracked, River Amphibious; 2 × Extra APSW, 2 × (5 man Infantry
teams).

River Amphibious is to indicate that the vehicle can cross calm water, not
water with waves like the sea. Note that while both vehicles have 2 DSII
infantry teams occupying the same amount of space, the number of people in
each team is different. I did this to better reflect the vehicle designs and
to give a base of fire with two manoeuvre elements. It also reflects advances
in technology between the two vehicles.

> Can you not have something like:
You can in the DSII rules.

When I play modern the M60 and M1 are size 4......

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

Greetings!

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> > Simple formulae fall apart in vehicle size estimations. Common

Probably not TOO much higher...:) Size 6 should be accurate.

> For the several hundred vehicles in Jane's Tank Recognition guide,

Your rule of thumb tends to undersize lighter vehicles and oversize heavier
vehicles. For those in the middle, it approximates adequately.

        We tend to look at the vehicle in question (be it a sci-fi model
or the stats of a real-life vehicle) and simply guesstimate volume,
silhouette, and mass as it relates to Size.  With a range of 1-6
(usually), it is pretty straightforward.

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@idirect.com> wrote:

Both would probably be classed as Size 3. Having played around in both, the
Bradley is not that much bigger than an M113, although it is a LOT heavier.

> The reason why the Bradley holds less troops than the M113, is

Armour 3? It's not THAT well armoured. It is better armoured than the M113,
but M113 drivers prefer the latter because it is MUCH more maneuverable...

Laterish!

        Ken

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

i'd be interested to know what equipment you would give it. a challenger has a
120 mm main gun, a coax 7.62 mm MG, a pintle 7.62 mm MG and some smoke
launchers.

size 6 is 30 cp. a turreted size 5 gun is 15 cp. an extra apsw is 1 cp (if you
think that an apsw is a 7.62 mm mg; i'd be tempted to say that both together
count as one). what takes up the rest of the room?

> >of course, the weight-to-size scale you use for using ds2 to simulate

true. roads are already quite wide in places - if your heavy armour
units
(size 5 100-tonners) only travel on motorways or cross-country you're
ok. rail may get wider as the need for rapid mass cargo transport increases.
as for the size of spacecraft, that's anyone's guess (except in the official
background).

i also refer you to mike eliott's post on ft-fb / ds2 interfacing, where
20 tonnes per cp was "SUGGESTED". not chapter and verse (in gzg, can anything
be?), but i still think it's right.

> A HVC with the range of HKP is probably the best alternative.

probably fair enough. i have seen designs where M1A1s have HKP, though.
alternatively, you could say that the hvc is a gun 10 years down the line
from now, so the M1A1 or challenger 2 gun is really a shorter-ranged
hvc, and the gun on the Long Drive (what are modern chinese tanks called?) is
even worse!

> >basically, a modern mbt of any make in the future setting is going to

sounds ok. the main problem i had was working out how to fill 15 cp, given
that a challenger does not have missiles or pds. that rule was just to get
out of a corner :-).

Tom

> Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Both would probably be classed as Size 3. Having played around in
Well, 50% increase in volume from doesn't seem bigger, but it is. Also, when
you have a M113 and use the hull design to make a M901 ITV, VSC:2 is exactly
right. VSC:2 for the M113 mortar carrier is exactly right. So based on my
designs and the realworld vehicle modifications, VSC:2 is about right for the
M113.

> Armour 3? It's not THAT well armoured. It is better armoured
Feel free to downgrade the armour to frighten the infantry inside!
:-)
I am a great believer in low casualty scores for my armies, high for my
opponent.

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:

> size 6 is 30 cp. a turreted size 5 gun is 15 cp. an extra apsw is 1 cp

Remember that not all tanks have the perfectly efficient design where
everything is fit in exactly under the limit. There could be a lot of slack.
Also, I think the size should be relative depending on the game background
played. If the game is purely modern, then a Challenger may well be a size 5
or 6, since it's one of the largest tanks in the world
currently.  But if some kind of futuistic/alien force is used alongside
a more "modern" force, the size has to be scaled down accordingly. e.g. make a
Challenger a size 3 if the largest tanks available are huge grav tanks.

> probably fair enough. i have seen designs where M1A1s have HKP,

This should depend on the design as above. If it's modern, the M1's should
have a HKP and lesser tanks should have a HVC, etc. And change accordingly.

> and the gun on the Long Drive (what are modern chinese tanks called?)
is
> even worse!

Type 90 II's are the latest I think... These have the same 125mm that's
on T72/T80/T90's.

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

Well, I've been thinking about 120mm guns. And, even though in recent posts,
I've suggested that 120mm guns are size 5, I'm now thinking that modern
western 120mm guns are size 6 HVC with HKP range. I would put Soviet and
Chinese guns as one step worse and with HVC range. I would also suggest that
Western fire control is even better than Brilliant fire control
(1D12).
Perhaps even to the stage of allowing a secondary crew quality roll, much like
SGII, to help in hitting the target. Or even allowing automatic hits if the
crew are not underfire. So, we've got a size 6 gun in a turret (18CP) and one
extra APSW
(1CP);
a total of 19CP with 6CP spare, assuming a size 5 hull. I would suggest that
out of the remaining 6CP, 1CP is wasted. The vehicle hull has one or two
levels of stealth (assumed to be better manufacturing methods, rather than
DSII's electronic stealth field) and the remaining 5CP could be used to help
improve frontal armour to, say, level 6. Smoke dischargers don't count for
capacity. I've assumed that you can spend spare capacity on improving armour
level. As a rough guide, using CP equal to front armour level increases
front armour level by one. This would cost about 1-2 points per CP used.
Challengers and M1A2s are reputed to be quite tough. See Tom Clancy's book on
the US armoured cavalry for more. Both the Challenger and the M1A2 are very
similar at this level of detail.

Andrew Martin
-------------
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
 http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
Usagi Yoyimbo Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/UY/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
         1         2         3         4         5         6         7
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

I assume this is for moderns-only DS2, and not M1a1 vs future tech
stuff. If it's for moderns vs futuretech, then I think you're being way, way
to generous to modern western armour.

If it's for moderns-only, I still think you might be being too generous
-
it is possible to kill an M1, and they don't automatically kill anything that
comes into range. They're very very very tough, and very lethal, but I do
think you're being too generous.

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/ --DS2/SG2/games
webpage--

> Andrew Martin
a
> size
is
> >even worse!

Isn't it time to remove the Ogres from this thread? Every time I see it I
think "Goody, Goody. Ogre talk!

> Brian Burger wrote:

> I assume this is for moderns-only DS2, and not M1a1 vs future tech

Let's not forget--M-1A1 (HA)s have been spanked thoroughly by BMPs and
T-62s, and once by an RPG that got into the turret ring.  Ooops.

When I play the straight modern games, they are Size 4, Armor 4R (Simulates
greater effectiveness of Composite armor, I know they don't
have reactive armor), Fast Tracked, with Superior FiCon, HVC/5, and
2xAPSWs (Co-ax, .50 cal.  The loader shouldn't have his ass hanging out
the turret playing infantryman. He should be loading.)

When I'm using my modern minis to simulate lower-tech GZG-verse troopies
(Americans with grav scout vehicles become the Sword of the Messiah, the
Georgian troops), they are pretty much the same, but downgraded to Enh FiCon
and upgraded to Enh ECM, and no Reactive armor. I don't think
we'd be seeing any straight unmodified 200-year old vehicles in 2183 any
more than we see modern armies using Brown Besses and smoothbore 9lbrs. YMMV,
of course.

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Chen-Song Qin wrote:

in this case, 14 or 15 cp of slack! if you're going to allow oversize
guns - explicitly not allowed in ds2, although i think they should be
:-)
- and gun size larger than vehicle size (is this allowed? my memory is a
bit hazy here) then, yes, the size 6 mbt could have a size 10 gun or
something.

> Also, I think the size should be relative depending on the game

why not just make it size 4 and say that there are no size 5 or 6 vehicles? i
suppose you lose some resolution that way, but it seems a bit odd. i suppose a
warrior or bradley has to be size 3: 2 inf teams,
rfac/1
in turret, two gms/l or one gms/h for bradley, 2 inf teams, rfac/2 in
turret and gms/l (latest models only) for warrior. by this logic, m1a1
and challenger have to be at least size 4. they could have a turreted size 5
gun and some bonus armour, say.

> But if some kind of futuistic/alien force is used alongside a

right. i think that size 4 is a happy medium for modern mbts in ds2,
especially given the fact that you can't build a reasonable ifv in size
2.

> > and the gun on the Long Drive (what are modern chinese tanks

not so bad, then.

Tom

> Thomas Anderson wrote:
In the standard DSII rules, you're allowed a main gun that's one size larger
than vehicle size class. Main guns have a maximum size of 5. I, too, think
that a size 6 and perhaps a size 7 main gun should be allowed. These should be
part of my house rules. I wouldn't allow a size 10 main gun, unless Ogres are
being used! And then only for the Ogres.

> why not just make it size 4 and say that there are no size 5 or 6
US Marines "AmTrac" AAV7 is definitely size 5 due to the amount of
infantry it can carry - 25 soldiers is about equal to 6 DSII infantry
teams
which means a 24 capacity points are required - size 5 vehicle.

> i suppose you lose some resolution that way, but it seems a bit
    In my design for the British Warrior IFV, it has a RFAC/2 and space
for two standard DSII infantry teams. There are light tanks and older tanks
that are more suited for size 4. For example, M60s and perhaps T72s.

> right. i think that size 4 is a happy medium for modern mbts in ds2,
I would go for size 5 myself. An ideal IFV, according to the Israelis, is a
Merkava with the turret removed. Their practical ones are obsolete tanks with
turrets removed and the hole filled in and doors fitted in the back around the
engine. In DSII, these would be size 5 vehicle with 5R armour and plenty of
MGs. Perhaps a GMS fitted on top.

Howdy!

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> Well, 50% increase in volume from doesn't seem bigger, but it is.
Also,
> when you have a M113 and use the hull design to make a M901 ITV, VSC:2

The M2 does not have a 50% increase in volume over the M113. The hull
structure *is* quite different, and while the M2 is larger, it isn't larger by
leaps and bounds. An M113 is probably on the
low end of Size 3.  Seeing them side-by-side and playing in and around
them, you get a better appreciation of the differences.

Although, in Vietnam troopers of the 8th Armoured Transport used
to strip M113s and put them on the back of 5-ton trucks to create
armoured monstrosities...:)

> Feel free to downgrade the armour to frighten the infantry inside!
:-)
> I am a great believer in low casualty scores for my armies, high for

Too bad the US government doesn't always think that way... There are a lot of
horror stories circulating from M2 crew about will and will not penetrate an
M2... <shudder>:)

        Ken

Greetings!

> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:

> I assume this is for moderns-only DS2, and not M1a1 vs future tech

I agree.

There is no reason why you can't build
historical/modern/futuristic vehicles with the same rules and design
philosophy. Physics and metallurgy do not fluctuate THAT much...:)

Something along the lines of;
        WWII MBT;       Size 2-3, armour 2-3, weapon rating 2-3, basic
firecon
        Modern MBT      Size 4, armour 4, weapon rating 4-5, enhanced
firecon
        Future MBT      Size 4-5, armour 4-5, weapon rating 4-5,
advanced firecon, with lots of goodies.

        <Yes, this is a grossly simplified off-the-cuff illustration,
but you get the point>

> If it's for moderns-only, I still think you might be being too

I really like the appeal of a system where you can use the same
system and design philosophy to construct historical/modern/futuristic
vehicles "realisitcally", and have them relevant to each other.

        A few friends were playing a regimental-sized campaign a while
back. One player had high tech invading aliens with grav, railguns, etc. The
other player was using Canadian and British TO&Es from the 1960s. It was
rather keen.

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Let's not forget--M-1A1 (HA)s have been spanked thoroughly by BMPs and

Not often. The M1 can take rather *withering* amounts of punishment. You
should have heard the Army guys at Aberdeen after the
Gulf War... :)

And hey, when *any* turret ring is spanked hard, no tank is going to do much
in the way of traversing.:)

> When I play the straight modern games, they are Size 4, Armor 4R

This makes sense. Also a good design.

> When I'm using my modern minis to simulate lower-tech GZG-verse

	:)

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> US Marines "AmTrac" AAV7 is definitely size 5 due to the amount of

While it is rated for a crew of 3 and 25 passengers, I've seen marines bitch
about being stuffed back there with only 12 guys. They call it "The Coffin" as
well as other colourful sobriquets.

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> > isn't that quite common? a marine m60 (iirc) had one in 'full metal

The Marines in WWII were the first to pioneer telephone boxes in the rear of
the chasis of a tank. Only the PL HQ would have a radio. When a squad was
hunkered down behind the tank, following it for cover, they had to have a way
to communicate to the tank (yelling just won't
work...).

Laterish!

        Ken

In a message dated 98-11-14 14:42:53 EST, you write:

<<
The Marines in WWII were the first to pioneer telephone boxes in the rear of
the chasis of a tank. Only the PL HQ would have a radio. When a squad was
hunkered down behind the tank, following it for cover, they had to have a way
to communicate to the tank (yelling just won't
 work...).
> [quoted text omitted]
I was under the impression that it was the Army not the USMC who first put the
telephone boxes on tanks. I no longer have it, but USMC Lt. Col. Joseph
Alexander wrote a book about 3 years ago called "Utmost Savagery" about the
1943 Tarawa campaign. If I remember correctly, one of the problems the Marines
had was infantry/armor coordination. By this point in the was the Army,
based on leasons learned in North Africa and Italy had tried to solve this
problem by using the telephone boxes. The other thing of course was to train
tanks and infantry to fight as a team and be sensitive to each others concerns
and tactical limitations. There were even "leasons learned" monographs
published and distributed throughout the ETO containing this type of
information. For some reason, it never made it to the Pacific in time for the
first of the big "Storm Landings" on Tarawa. By Iwo Jima, though, these
leasons were learned and incorporated in to tactical doctrine.

I wonder if these leasons will need to be relearned in a Stargrunt/DSII
universe full of GEV's, Hover Tanks and Power suited infantry. Anyone see
combined arms doctrine changes to take into account all this new fangled
Sci-
Fi technology?

Howdy!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 PERRYG1@aol.com wrote:

> I was under the impression that it was the Army not the USMC who first
Joseph
> Alexander wrote a book about 3 years ago called "Utmost Savagery"
about the
> 1943 Tarawa campaign. If I remember correctly, one of the problems the

Ahhh... I had read about the Marine dilemma concerning
infantry/armour coordination, and the advent of the telephone box at the
rear of the tank. I had assumed that the Marines innovated this rather than
adapt it from another branch. Interesting!

> There were even "leasons learned" monographs published and distributed

VERY neat!

> I wonder if these leasons will need to be relearned in a

Man, that is a WHOLE can o' worms...

Based on SG over the last few years, tanks don't seem TOO much different from
doctrine today. Powered infantry is nasty (mobility AND lethality) and seems
to call into question new tactics for dealing with them, as you can't just
treat them as "normal" grunts. Some vehicles shake things up to. Infantry
walker with size 2 plasma weapons all of a
sudden have a *nasty* anti-armour punch, and pretty good mobility...

Laterish!

        Ken