This isnt a request for clarification so much as consensus: how many players
out there ignore the rule limiting the number of.systems a vehicle can carry
to the vehicles class, and instead use capacity alone?
--- majordomo@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <majordomo@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
Thank you.
> If you ever want to remove yourself from this
IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT
> Important note on use of the
from the named <list>.
> "unsubscribe *" will remove you (or <address>) from
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I ignore it for infantry teams, APSWs, and other 'minor' items.
Hm. I don't see how this is a "consensus" issue, unless my reading
comprehension skills are suffering badly. I just re-read the vehicle
design rules. It clearly states that you may have one *weapon system* per
size point of the vehicle. It says nothing about limits on non-weapons
other than the fact that they use capacity.
?
John
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Brian B wrote:
> This isnt a request for clarification so much as
Ditto. I still use the Main Gun limit but ignore all the other limits.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
There are practical reasons for allowing more SAW/PDS type weapons on
the designs; it lets you build a Slammers combat car for example (size 2, 3 x
SAW is DSII and size 2, 3 x PIG in SGII). It also makes vehicles more
effective in close assault actions (as only
SAW/PDS weapons can fire in DSII close assaults).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
The question becomes what you define as minor. Im inclined to ignore the rule
altogether. (by the way, John, did you see my summation post re: AEVs?)
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can do the slammers combat car in DSII without breaking the rules as
they are written. It explicitely states that the "free" APSW does NOT count
towards any capacity or size limitations issues (Page 11: ALL
MILITARY VEHICLES ARE FITTED WITH ONE "FREE" APSW, CAPABLE OF ALL-ROUND
FIRE; THIS WEAPON DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS ANY WEAPONS FIT LIMITATIONS, OR
TAKE UP ANY CAPACITY.). Thus, your combat car (size 2) with 3 APSWs is within
the "2 weapons max" limit despite the third weapon. Further, the
PDS is not listed as a "weapon" but rather as a "defensive system".
E.G.,
it doesn't count as a "weapon" because it can't be used to attack anything.
<shrug>
I don't see the problem.
;)
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> There are practical reasons for allowing more SAW/PDS type weapons on
The problem is that when the vehicle is suppressed, you can't use the free
APSW (its outside the armour). The APSWs you pay for are "enclosed" and can be
used even when the vehicle is suppressed. It makes a major difference on the
SGII table.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
That would definitely make it a clarification issue. However, ISTR a rules
clarification being handed down that stated yes, infantry elements etc. Do
count toward the limit. Either way, I was not referring to
weapon or non-weapon systems when I posed the
question, I was taking issue with the rule in general.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT-IMPORTANT
> >>
Ah. I see.
Happily, this does not effect my forces since I don't play SGII.:)
The original question mentioned the limitation in DSII, so I assumed that that
that was the crux of the discussion. I'll quietly back away from the SGII
element here...
:)
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> The problem is that when the vehicle is suppressed, you can't use the
given their small caliber & high rof, my house rules
treat rfacs & mdc 1-2 as apsw in close assault. But Im
talking about more than apsws. If a vehicles class allows it a certain
capacity, doesnt that already put a reasonable limit on the amount of
equipment it can carry?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
contact the sender
> by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not
Well, a size-3 vehicle with a 7-barrel DFFG or 7 GMS/L starts to look a
bit silly.
Brendan 'neath southern skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
Agreed. Ironic - the main gun limit, which makes more
sense (or at least is easier to psb), is optional!
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
contact the sender
> by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not
> At 1:49 PM -0700 7/20/04, Brian B wrote:
The ACAV and a number of other vehicles (Merkava) break this rule in real life
so I have no problem breaking it in game for small systems like APSW's and
dismounts.
1. Re-read the paragraph above the one that you
quoted, then tell me the pds doesnt count. 2. The problem is with the rule in
general, not with
hair-splitting about whether a specific system
violates it or not.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
contact the sender
> > by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do
> At 5:20 PM -0400 7/20/04, John K Lerchey wrote:
Merkava Tank. Class 3 MDC4, APSW (Coax), APWS (TC Pintle), APSW (Loader
Pintle), APSW (.50 Coax), APSW (60mm Mortar).
M113 ACAV, Class 2 APSW (TC Pintle), APSW (Rear Troop M60), APSW (Rear Troop
M60)
Heck look at some of the other Isreali armor. It tends to have more MGs than a
German Infantry Company.
*shrug* Im only concerned with DS not SG.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
contact the sender
> by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not
> At 8:18 AM +1000 7/21/04, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
COUGH ONTOS COUGH
Class 2 (Class 1 that sucker is small) 6 Main Guns (single shot, but still) 4
.50 spotting rifles and I think a coax MG
Doesn't fit in the construction rules.
Size 2, Capacity 10 = 4 x turreted class-1 weapons or 5 x fixed class-1
weapons.
Could certainly house-rule it down to size, though.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:18:59 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Not a 'weapon' IMO.
Please point me towards the archives where that was stated.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
1) PDS counts.
2)PDS is specifically for auotmated anti-GMS work, not manual infantry
killing.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
I don't. After a main gun, A PDS (Enh or Sup preferred) and a LAD the
only thing worth adding (maybe) is carried Infantry. In most cases.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:43:54 +1000 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> writes:
<snip>
> It also makes vehicles more effective in close assault actions (as
PDS? Where is that in the rules?
Gracias,
We had this debate the first time I was on the list. I still think Fire Teams
are not 'weapons systems' nut YMMV.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:20:54 -0400 (EDT) John K Lerchey
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
The free APSW isn't the same as the paid for ones? Where does it say that?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:57:15 +1000 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> writes:
granted but it's reality, this is SF.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:27:39 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 5:20 PM -0400 7/20/04, John K Lerchey wrote:
Yeah, RL examples do seem to support my point. The
problem is that capacity is so ill-defined. Is it
mass? Volume? Both? In what ratio? If both, which I suspect, then the systems
per class rule is redundant.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Data Center Operations Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN
Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
> - Office: 404-588-6191
Id offer that any system CAPACITY 4 or less should be exempt.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
break this rule in
> real life so I have no problem breaking it in game
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Data Center Operations Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN
Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
> - Office: 404-588-6191
DS 2 rules - Page 12 bottom left/top right - the MICV example:
Size 3 - 15 capacity
two elements of infantry - 8 cap points
turreted Class-1 for 3 capacity points and a GMS/H for four capacity
points. total capacity = 15. Legal.
If Fire Teams count as weapons then this design is (for emphasis not volume)
ILLEGAL.. turret = 1 weapon GMS = second weapon
2 fire teams count as weapons "3" and "4" - but they don't.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:47:31 PDT Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> writes:
> Please point me towards the archives where that was stated.
The list of real vehicles that break the rules goes on. (IIRC John A mentioned
the ratel). Capacity will ensure that only small items violate the rule, so a
hr exempting such (again, cap. 4 seems good) makes sense.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Data Center Operations Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN
Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
> > - Office: 404-588-6191
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Emergency Power-off != Door release!
-
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
contact the sender
> by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not
Ill try to this weekend when I have time to research, but my point was about
the rule in general not about which items it covered.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
"MISSTOS" - a AFV using only multiple GMS/L - Size two and 5 GMS/Ls.
Okay 4 GMS/Ls and a PDS/Basic.
Okay, okay, three GMS/Ls and a LAD and a PDS/Basic.
Anyway, if I hit you it's at least 6 chits and maybe 10 chits. Pray for a
"firer system down' chit. Now THAT's a rule to change (or chits to
'lose', hehe-hehe.)
Point? ANY rules can be min-max'ed by a munchkin. I have played with
some doozies so have learned to be aware if for no other reason then
self-defense. Hence I usually GM any more. My world, My miniatures, My
scenario, My decisions.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
Thats a cop-out, especially when were talking about a
rule that makes the SF vehicles LESS capable than the RL.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
> >- Office: 404-588-6191
-
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
fine, but my issue has nothing to do with fire teams. Again, its with the rule
overall.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
I still think Fire
> Teams are not 'weapons systems' nut YMMV.
i agree. My second point still stands.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
APSW,
> >CAPABLE OF ALL-ROUND
issue,
> >unless my reading
do
> >not copy, print,
Oh, House Rule. Okay, I will agree with that. I thought you wanted a change in
the rules as published. You might get it in DS 3 (yeah in our life time...
<grin>...) but I still think it's not necessary.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
No, it's not. It's a reflection of the reality that SF rules have great
difficultly modeling all the wacky things real armies do with their equipment.
And staying simple. I left out the smiley face 8^) so that's my error. Lots of
'real world' AFVs that violate DS 2 design rules.
And the SG 2 rules don't really reflect LMGs/MMGs/maybe HMGs very well.
Or some would say at all.
Rules for games are at best attempts at reality but in SF (and Fantasy)
reality is not the point of the game.
YMMV.
Gracisa, glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
Now, was that a cop out? <grin>
Capacity rules include Fire Teams but not as weapons IMO. YMMV.
I must say that someone (not you?) brought up the Fire Teams as weapons
systems so I was responding to that. I think the rules, flawed and unrealistic
as they are, still work well as a game. And I am interested in the game, not a
simulation of reality.
Been there, done that in real life. And as long as you ignored human factors
the simulations work.
But that's the fun stuff in a game.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
And how does any of that support or refute the argument for or against the
rule?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> > -
> > -
House rule for now, but Id definitely like to see it omitted from DS 3
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> > -
> > -
So if the rule is poorly conceived or executed, why not change or eliminate
it?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
issue,
> >unless my reading
It
> >says nothing
> > -
> > -
No, it was NOT me who first brought up infantry, so dont pin it on me! And the
issue is really separate of sf vs rl as well! I just think the rule limiting a
vehicle to a number of weapons equal to its class is redundant and overly
restrictive, and so far Ive yet to see a relevant counterargument.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
And I am interested
> in the game, not a simulation of reality.
issue,
> >unless my reading
=== Message Truncated ===
> I just think the rule limiting a
So house-rule it away. DS3 is far enough away that you don't need to
worry about making your opinion known to the playtest list just at the moment
(although FMAS **is** moving ahead...really!) and I wouldn't expect anyone to
get unbearably stressed about custom designs unless they're munchkinish.
Well said. Ive only come up with one design that might be construed as cheesy,
and even it can be defended:
class 3 vtol, 2 gms/h, tri-barreled mdc 1 chin turret.
All the other cases involve an extra apsw on occasion.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
and I wouldn't
> expect anyone to get unbearably stressed about
> At 6:46 PM -0700 7/20/04, Brian B wrote:
What's wrong with that? What's a Huey Cobra?
MDC 1 (tribarrel 20mm)
2 GMS/H (Two 4 round Tow pods or two 4 round Hellfire racks)
x1 SLAM3 (two 2.75" FFAR pods w/ 76 rockets)
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> >However, ISTR a rules clarification being handed down
Can't find the post itself (must've been sometime in 1996 or -97), but
the relevant part of it is quoted on Andy Cowell's DS2 Q&A pages
(http://www.cowell.org/~andy/min/ds2/mike/part1):
"EXAMPLE 5: MEDIUM WHEELED APC
THIS IS A MEDIUM VEHICLE (15 CAPACITY). IT HAS ONE MDC/1 IN A TURRET (3
CAPACITY). THAT LEAVES TWELVE CAPACITY--ROOM FOR 3 INFANTRY TEAMS. BUT
IT LISTS ONLY ROOM FOR 2 INFANTRY TEAMS. WHAT GIVES?
[other peoples' comments snipped, then Mike Elliott replies]
Example 5: Medium Wheeled APC
There may be sufficient spare capacity for 3 teams, but you must apply the
rule on p11 "No vehicle may be fitted with more weapon systems than its basic
size class" In this case, carried infantry teams count as weapon
systems (after all they do shoot, particularly if they've got IAVRs -
ouch!). So a size 3 vehicle with an MDC/1 (or any other weapon for that
matter) can only take 2 infantry teams.
Mike Elliott, GZG"
And yes, it means that the second example MICV design on p.12 is illegal.
***
> >It also makes vehicles more effective in close assault actions (as
AFAIK it isn't. *APFCs* can fire in DS2 close assaults; PDSs don't.
Regards,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:18:47 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> I just think the rule limiting a
Who, me? Nah, my oldest girl is called Munchkin buts from being a nine pound
20month old child when the Foundling home got her. I just like to
design 'optimal' and 'flawed' vehicles/armies.
Gracias,
LOL! That's not cheese! Slightly cheese-flavored at worst.
That's a specialist 'optimal' vehicle. <grin> Tank busting and not a bad
infantry buster either.
Gunship material.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
Half the fun for some is designing effective (or in my case, flawed) weapons
platforms. You would need to replace the design system with
something else that will turn out to have compromises/flaws/errors (pick
your poison term) or not have a design system at all and have codex systems
like WH40K (and that works so well.)
Capacity is simple. Flawed? Oh yeah. But as long as it's a game and I can
enjoy the game... <shrug>.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
I think all SF rules with design methodologies are poorly designed or executed
as are most historical and (crawls out on limb) ALL fantasy efforts. Reality
is too complex for a reasonably simple game to try and take in. You compromise
and there is where you get dinged.
I am not saying not change it in house rules if you want but I am saying that
'reflecting reality' is a Holy Grail or even a chimera that many a game
pursues too closely to it's ruin as a game. Hell, why not get John A., Hilal
and Derek together and get them to agree on what is a SAW and what is a LMG
along with how to model them in SG 2? I think we had that conversation before
and before and before and...
As to DS 2, which is what I believe this thread started about, we have to
remember that modern composite armors may (it's SF we have no idea of what the
'reality' of the future might be) may be paper thin effectiveness compared to
what nations use when DS 2 supposedly occurs.
We might have "Ballistic Cloth" as in Space MArines (pre-GW rules) by
then. Likely? No but if it's a basic staple for the infantry (as defined in
the game) then Collapsium is possibly the AFV armor of choice. First you need
to decide what is the baseline (or 'virtual reality' if you prefer) of the
game.
I just find trying to model reality in future (far more then near) happening
SF games becomes rules oriented, not game oriented. YMMV.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
My bad. I deleted the posts to save space on this old 486 and wasn't sure.
Yes, two issues.
Actually I agree with you but I think it was done to retain simplicity in the
system. I don't question it might be okay to have more 'tubes' per
vehicle. I think a multiple RFAC/1 (how about class 3 with 6 barrel
turret with a PDS/Basic?) vehicle should be able to be fielded. Would I
do so for 'my army' (not the flawed creations I use in the games I run)
?
Probably not unless I had a special application that called for it in the
game. But yes, the rules are possibly unduly restrictive but it doesn't
usually bother me because I accept it as part of the simplicity of the game
system.
So we agree the design rules are flawed but we disagree that they need to be
fixed because we have a different desire for the game system (it appears.) And
that's okay.
Prophecy <grin> time! I prophesy that DS 3 will not become published before
December 31, 2007. And maybe not Ever. Too few tread heads
versus grunts versus Vacc-heads to make it a high enough priority for
Jon T. As long as he keeps making miniatures, that's okay with me.
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
It is an example that shows nothing should be 'free' - this is a cheap
munchkin AFV 'all or nothing' cheese flavored AFV killer that would make the
loophole you propose into a game ruining Carlsbad Cavern. The
GMS/Ls
are zero cost per the change suggested below yet hit as a size 3 (normally at
least 6 or 9 capacity points) weapon.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
w
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
> | | | -==----
> | O--=- | |
Let me clarify. By tribarreled I mean three mdc-1s.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
> | | | -==----
> | O--=- | |
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
I think this depends (to some degree) to what you want/expect a
system to reflect. In the GZG games, iirc, the word "abstract" plays a huge
role in the design systems (at least for FT and DS2). I'm not arguing with
you, or anyone else, necessarily on this thread. I just want to point out that
all too often people forget about the ABSTRACTING of things. Yeah, okay, so I
have a tank that has X weapons
systems, but the rules say I can only have X-2 weapons systems. Well,
the two 'extra' weapons are just then abstracted into the overall design. You
can't model every little aspect of a vehicle (or starship) in games with this
level of simplicity.
> As to DS 2, which is what I believe this thread started about, we
Oerjan pointed out a year or two ago (don't remember if it was on this list or
the test list) that if you were to try modelling contemporary armour
(specifically he cited the Abrahms MBT) with DS2 rules, the
armour distribution would have to be changed from 3/2/1/1 (front/sides/
top/bottom) to 8/2/1/1 (to reflect the stopping power of said armor
in the front as compared on a relative scale with all the other armor around
the vehicle and on other vehicles). But according to the rules,
you can't have that armor distribution. ;-) So, need to accept that
this is not possible, or abstract the reality into how the rules are
written, or house-rule things (this latter is what I think most people
tend to do in any event, even me in some cases ;-).
Mk
Thanks for the clarification & the vindication of my memory, OO. I noticed no
comment on what you thought of the rule.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Zero cost? How so? You still pay points for it and it can be killed. Be that
as it may, a rule that prevents a number of legitimate designs to prevent a
few cheesy ones is at best flawed.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
- this is a cheap
> munchkin AFV 'all or nothing' cheese flavored AFV
> >
> >
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
No, the missles aren't added together. They come in independantly. And
depending on how much you spent
(5xGMS/L Sup would be expensive) I have a reasonable
chance of stopping them. That's not a problem at all.
And at any rate, they all target one single vehicle, so it is no worse than
what will happen when my
perfectly-book-legal tank destroyers (2xGMS/H Sup)
start shooting back.
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I only ignore it for infantry teams and machine guns, as those are the worst
"Real Life" offenders.
Ratel: 20mm cannon, 3 machineguns, 9 dismounts IIRC. Big, but not size 5.
Armed scout or MP HMMWV: machinegun, dismount team.
Any Israeli vehicle you care to name: Well more machineguns than they would be
allowed.
M-16 halftrack: 4xAPSW on a size 2 track.
I don't really find a tactical reason to have multiple heavy weapons on a
single vehicle (excepting
GMS/automatic weapon combos) anyway.
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Furthermore, John, your design will hit from farther out. No, I didnt see
anything cheesy about glens design, rather it seemed a bit weak.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
The only systems Id violate the rule with would also be apsw, infantry, gms,
or class 1 direct fire weapons.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Big, but not size 5.
Yeah, my email system is goofy. Mind if I send it to you offlist? Id like the
opinion of an actual engineer.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
I beg to differ here, but only because I'm a pain the rear.:)
The M-16 had quad .50 cals. Given that they shoot down aircraft, and
*do*
have the capability of engaging lightly armored vehicles at shorter
ranges, I'd call 'em RFAC/1s.
Still, that does give 4 class 1 weapons on a size 2 track if you go that
way, which breaks the rule.
However, as Indy stated, part of the elegance of Jons rules is
*abstraction*. The M-16 was an AA vehicle. I'd go with a basic ADS and
a second RFAC (coaxially mounted). The ADS fires against ground targets as an
RFAC, so a pair of them adequately covers the added firepower for my purposes,
though clearly I would not be representing it as 4 weapons.
No rules are perfect, and in DSII, I think that "the intended combat effect"
is often more to be sought than the issue of "how many guns can I cram on this
sucker?" mentality.
:)
J
> M-16 halftrack: 4xAPSW on a size 2 track.
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> No rules are perfect, and in DSII, I think that "the
How often does 'intended combat effect' require more
guns than 1-2? Exception being APSWs. You can never
go wrong hanging more APSWs off of any vehicle.
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure, send it.
Firrt of all, let me again reiterate that discussions regarding specific Real
life vehicles and alternate ways to simulate them are interesting, but
ultimately they distract from the real issue. And I do understand the
abstraction concept, believe it or not. But even it is tied to the issue of
specific designs, and fails to address the main issue: why the systems per
class rule, and should it be changed?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Brian,
If you really want to get back to it, it's not "systems per class", it's
*weapons* per class. That's the limiting rule.
As to why it's there, I have no idea. I think you'd have to get Jon T. to
chime in on it.:)
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Brian B wrote:
> Firrt of all, let me again reiterate that discussions
1. Even weapons per class is a bit much. 2. Until he does, Im HRing it out.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> >
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> to address the main issue: why the systems per class
Restricting the argument to these points alone:
1)I do not know.
2)Yes. The rule should be dropped. It would be very difficult to create
abusive vehicles without this rule in place that could not be created with
this rule in place. In general, adding multiple heavy weapons (size 2 and
larger weapons) adds very little to the effectiveness of the vehicle, at least
in proportion to the point cost. Further, it would allow actual IFVs capable
of carrying a full squad (size 3, 2
teams, RFAC/1, GMS/H, for instance). There is already
a balance in the system for trying to create 'ubervehicles' with a dozen
different systems, and that is the silly point cost thereof. In other words,
the problem with highly capable vehicles is that each one is still vulnerable
to being blown up and all those points you poured into buying it go up in
smoke.
Further, on a purely personal basis, I rather LIKE vehicles bristling with
machine guns as otherwise I find they are far too vulnerable to infantry teams
for my taste.
The primary effects of this rule change will be twofold:
First, infantry-carrying vehicles will start sporting
more serious firepower. This is not that big a threat
because unless/until someone comes up with a truly
effective IFV doctrine (something the
US/UK/FSU/FRG/ETC have been working on for years with
little sucess) they will still have to decide whether they will ACT like tank
destroyers, light tanks, recon vehicles, or APCs. And that is something I can
cope with, from a tactical standpoint.
Second, vehicles will sprout additional anti-infantry
weapons, primarily APFCs and APSWs, but also size 1 weapons. Usually your
primary armament will take most of your capacity. So the urge to add in
systems over and above the size limit of the vehicle is likely to come when
deciding what to do with the 'left over' points. And so 1 and 2 capacity point
systems will be the bulk of it. Now, I am not truly worried that some
extra size-1 MDCs are going to unbalance any game I
play. APSWs and APFCs will have one primary function, to make close assault
with infantry far more lethal. This is not a terribly BAD thing, per se. Close
assault should be mutually horrific, with mangled corpses all over the place
on BOTH sides (presuming at least marginal competence on the part of both). As
it stands, vehicles are pretty vulnerable to close assault and there is rarely
much they can do about it. While this is accurate for truly good troops,
having a lot of APSWs out there making noise is going to discourage even the
bravest to some degree. I would be surprised if infantry fire resolution
actually
results in more than a handful dead--mostly just guys
who decided they didn't want to play anymore. Anyway, that would even the
playing field so that both infantry and armor commanders approach the subject
of close assault with much trepidation.
As a vacc-head, I've kept out of this discussion for the most part, but
I feel I must play devil's advocate.
The discussion sounds rather like the argument against the use of class
structure in FTII, and lo, the class structure for buildingFTII(.5) ships has
disappeared. However, it does not mean that it was invalid, merely that it was
too rigid to be a 'basic' or even 'official' rule as it was. At the risk of
angering Brian again by bringing up RL, I will point out that, at various
times, classes, whether in ships or armored vehicles, has been a valid
concept. The realities that brought these about were many, from
mission-driven, to certain non-linear, non-continuous variables, and not
necessarily easy to recreate without class structures.
Now, technology, political 'realities', and the like will vary with time, and
mission creep will happen. At Jutland, the German DD's were smaller as a group
than the British DD's, almost enough to classify them as two different
classes, but were still recognizable from CL's, and all the DD's were used in
similar manner. Over the years, 'destroyer' has grown pretty damn big. Not
quite B5 destroyer big, but you get the idea.
My impression is that at various stages, a heavy tank is a heavy tank, even if
they were slightly larger, say, in Germany than most other places, and there's
a distinction from light tanks, though that line may shift, especially during
the upheaval of war.
It may not fit your idea of the game, but I think the idea of classes was and
is still justifiable. Just damn tricky to make into a rule.
The_Beast
> At 1:09 PM -0400 7/21/04, John K Lerchey wrote:
Ever hear of Eve of Destruction? She was a Vietnam Era Gun Truck. They also
tended to add a single.50 on the front over the cab in addition to the quad 50
mounted in back. It was not used as an AA weapon.
May I point out that the term class is defined differently in your RL examples
or even in FT than it is in DS? Your use of class refers to the general type
of ship etc. And its layout and mission. In DS, class refers specifically to
the vehicles size in relation to other vehicles.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
rule as it was. At the
> risk of angering Brian again by bringing up RL, I
> even in FT
Originally, in the FTII design system, class was divided strictly into sizes.
And, no, I meant the size and 'general type' were connected.
The_Beast
the main issue: why the systems per class
> rule, and should it be changed?
If you can keep the system simple (whatever that means is very
subjective) and get a capacity replacement system (mass/volume/whatever)
that gets closer to 'reality' [while acknowledging that may be a slippery
term - is a 105 mm a size 3 or 4 or 5 weapon depends on what is bigger
and what is smaller in the future world] and has no artificial # of weapons
per class of vehicle the I could support that and probably (back to whatever
simple means) back that change 99%. I hardly ever agree 100%. <grin>
Gracias,
That means he'll probably try to prove you wrong and publish on 24 December
2007. ;-)
There actually is a market for 1/300 scale gamers, you just don't see
them
as they often game from home using Napoleonics or Crossfire/Micro-armour
rules. Trying to wean them to a new system is difficult as they've been
playing the
same system for 20+ years in some cases.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
Yes, I know.
And, no, I meant the size and 'general type'
> were connected.
OK..... hatever you mean by that, I'm trying to figure out how that has any
bearing on a discussion of the merits of a rule that states that the number of
Weapons a vehicle can carry is limited to the number of the Size Class
(Specific DS II term) of the vehicle.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
How would ELIMINATING a rule make the system MORE COMPLICATED?
(whatever that
> means is very
I'm not suggesting elimination of or changing the capacity system (Any
wholesale changes to it are DS III issues, not DS II), merely the elimination
of the "# of weapons < or = Size Class of Vehicle" rule.
I'm interested in nothing but DS myself, but I know I'm an abberation. I
bought the FT books, but it's never fired my interest the way DS does.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Correct analysis.
Although I know a few munchkins in other games...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:45:16 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> No, the missles aren't added together. They come in
I agree but not everyone does (see other post.)
But I don't field anything over 1 per vehicle except for a GMS/H x 2
NPC ATM and only one platoon (4 vehicles) in a Battalion at that.
Gracias,
I meant zero capacity cost (if I understood what you said correctly) -
points cost of course.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:49:11 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip.
> I don't really find a tactical reason to have multiple
Seems unnecessary and precludes decent defensive systems in some cases.
Gracias,
Good question, I hope my answers make sense...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> So, House Rule Time!
> GMS systems - count
> PDS systems - count
> ADS systems - count
> LAD systems - count
> APSW (past one) - count
> Fire Teams - DON'T Count
Even if you argue it is a weapon system (maybe but the things they make go
boom seem more like a weapon system to me) I would not see it as a 'vehicle'
weapon system. Hair splitting? Maybe but I am comfortable with it.
> Cargo Load - DON'T Count
> Vehicle Transport - DON'T Count
> Command/Communication systems - count
> Artillery weapons - count
> CBR systems - count
Easier (for me) to count it as a weapon system multiplier but that's not
the choice - is or isn't. "Is" feels right.
I might note this has little affect on non-APC/MICV AFVs (except for NPC
where almost all vehicles have a 'Battle Rider" infantry Fire Team or two)
since I usually start with a Size 4 or 3 * main gun, a PDS (Enh or
Sup in most cases - low tech PHR always gets Basic FCS, PDS, ECM, GCS)
then a LAD if enough capacity.
Gracias, Glenn
* I would use 5 except for the odds on a "firer system down" seem too
high for my comfort - one poor guy might as well blow them up at the
start of the game - he's experienced over 50% failure with HVC-5's
usually after getting Boom or 'sure to kill' damage chits accumulated before
the 'FSD' chit is exposed (over 75% of the time in one game.) Always at the
critical moment it seems. I draw them together and expose them sequentially,
understandably he hates that now.
Gracias,
I was criticized off list and live in person for this kind of design.
"Reality" was the 'reason' - "nobody does that in real life, it's one
missile at a time ' - and the actual design was never fielded but only
an 'on paper' developed Size 5 vehicle with 5 GMS/Hs and a Fire Team
(just for s... kicks... and grins) each using a GMS/L as a platoon of
Ultra Heavy Tank Destroyers.
The argument was that no vehicle could survive picking 5 chits five times if
so this was cheese. Guess they never figured how likely a 'firer system down'
chit would be in 25 chits. This person also insisted previously that multiple
GMS did not come in individually but one die roll for the 'salvo' until I
showed this design. Then they wanted 5 rolls... they felt failure meant no
chance of surviving the damage. I love baiting munchkins. It's a sin but I am
a fallen creature so it comes naturally. It's also too much fun to pass up.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
No Size 3 = 15 cap points, infantry (not a 'weapon' per se but a weapon
using force who can not fire from trucks, VTOLs and etc - why? - but can
fire from APCs and MICVs * - but the fire is 100% "ineffective" - no
casualties but place under fire marker on target) stills cost cap at 4 per FT
unless PA which is 8 per.
* why can you fire from hatches or ports but not from the open side of a truck
puzzles me. Moot if you can't do any harm I suppose.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:36:24 -0400 "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> writes:
I'd love that.
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:40:41 +1000 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
Okay, Total Elimination would not. I fully agree with that.
<snip>
> I'm not suggesting elimination of or changing the
Actually that is okay with me. It would make a house rule unnecesary. Always
good. Oh, that would be a house rule... but it would simplify. I might use
that idea. Time to get out the spreadsheet (if I haven't deleted it) and play
around.
There are a few vehicles in my various (6) Cotu forces with an unused single
capacity point. Maybe a very few with more then one (PHR mostly IIRC) unused
cap point. I can see filling those with APSW(s) or an APFC combined with an
APSW if two capacity points.
Gracias,
Main interest is DS.
But I have SG so I will play with that too but less often; Full Thrust books I
have and a few fleets but I always seem to play other people's scenarios at
cons.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
ok that makes sense.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
weapon.
> >>
My
> >> >world, My miniatures, My
> >
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
I'd really like to see a good, GENERIC, Sci-Fi, 1/300th game that can
be adapted to a wide variety of backgrounds, from Battletech, to
Centurian, to B5, to whatever home-grown ideas hit us. If it can cover
modern equipment too, that makes it great for near-future (late 21st,
early 22nd) where you might see Abrams' in a milita somewhere.
So far the best has been DS2, but what we play with is extremely heavily
modified: Impact vs. Armor from SG2, new direct fire resolution based on SG2,
transfer of actions, extended palette of weapon types, wider range of System
Qualities, etc.
J
If you check the archives, OO did post some of the draft DS3 conversions for
weapon damage last year he had calculated out.
That's the major selling point of all GZG's product; you can easily modify it
to most genres and it won't break down. Hoplite Spearmen vs Sherman tanks
might give it a little trouble (unless you're a certain
Brain-Brawn
city).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
For a very generic approach for Battalions and bigger there is the Prophecy of
War rules (see Yahoo for PoW group and also it is in the files of
6mmScienceFictionWarGames group) but it doesn't sound like it's what you want
with those changes.
And the rules are free.
That said, I am currently trying not to add another set of disconnected rules
to my list.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:57:49 -0700 (PDT) J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes:
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
I think we were coming at it from different angles. You were thinking
amputation of gangrenous limb and I was thinking minimal reconstructive
plastic surgery. My original goal was to fix an element (infantry as vehicular
weapon) that made no logical sense to me. You were dealing with what you saw a
flaw at the design level. But as I said dropping the restriction totally works
for me. I may use it or not.
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:45:45 -0700 (PDT) J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes:
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
Somewhere between the two solutions offered. Sounds okay.
Gracias,
Hello Brian (welcome back on-list, BTW <g>),
> Thanks for the clarification & the vindication of my
I carefully *avoided* commenting on it, since any comment I could make on it
could easily be taken as a slam on Mike and Jon (which I don't intend) <g> See
my other post today... though even without that, I suspect that you
could make a quite accurate guess about my opinion on this matter ;-)
Later,
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:40:41 +1000 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> writes:
<SNIP>
> There actually is a market for 1/300 scale gamers, you just don't see
6 mm is growing. We had a game last week at one of the four shops BMHGA plays
in weekly. I attended since it was myusual gaming place (not closest but we
won't go there) and the GM ran Command Decision (IIRC)
with East front Germans called back to meet Brits in post-invasion
Normandy. I had to leave before it ended. Nice to see someone who I had not
associated with that scale running a game (even if it seemed like a
binder of charts was necessary to run a game - shudder) in my favorite
scale.
IMO 1/300th or 6 mm works best visually for mass battles whether
historical (usually pre-MG,) Fantasy or SF (where the mass is more scale
of combat (1" is 100 meters would not appeal to most WW2 small unit gamers I
suspect.) then masses of close grouped soldiers.) Dirtside 2 brought me back
to micro armor although I still don't like WW2 or 'moderns' in micro armor all
that much.
Gracias,
> Doug Evans wrote:
> At the risk of angering Brian again by bringing up RL, I will point out
> that, at
But the only of these "classes" which had any impact on the *size* of the
design were pure paper constructions - treaty limits which the signatory
powers were supposed to follow. Most of these treaty limits were broken very
quickly, showing that they had were in no way whatsoever derived from
missions or "non-linear, non-continuous variables".
When you look at the *mission-related* and *tech-related* classes, you
very quickly find "oddities" like cruisers that were physically bigger than
contemporary battleships. If you look at non-contemporary units, I'm
pretty
certain that you'll find late-WW2 "medium tanks" bigger and heavier than
pre-war "heavy tanks", showing that the concept "heavy tank" is *not*
tied to a specific size or mass range. These classes are classifications of
the
unit's *performance*, not of its *size* - and as such they are
completely different from DS2's or FT2's "size classes", which are purely
concerned
with the unit's size (just like the old treaty limits) and have nothing to do
with its performance or mission.
Regards,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> missile at a time ' - and the actual design was
Go for it. PLEASE. How many points would that platoon cost? I make it about
415 points if it is slow tracked, CFE, Armor 5, Sup ECM, Sup GMS, and ignoring
the fire teams, and no stealth.
295 if you drop the stealth and downgrade your GMS to
Enhanced. 220 if GMS/H/Basic, but then what's the
point?
Given that for 276 points I can buy a Grav Tank with
Superior ECM, Basic PDS, and an MDC/4(T), I would
welcome such a thing on my table. I can reach out and touch you at a longer
range, where you are rolling a d4 defence and I'm rolling a d6 even if I shoot
on the move.
Oh, and if you please, bunch up the platoon so I can use it as artillery bait.
Preferably after dismounting the infantry.:)
> The argument was that no vehicle could survive
Few vehicles can survive picking 4 chits once. I mean it happens, but once you
get hit by any size 4 weapon (HELs excepted) you are likely at least damaged.
> previously that multiple GMS did not come in
If he wants a freakin' salvo, get a freakin salvo launched attack missle.
the only time a gms is treated as asalvo is resolving
ADS - the rules say place all gms markers for the
firing UNIT, not element.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
Yeah, I had a feeling.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Ah, I see. Figured as much. See, for a construction system, I believe limits
should be based on size (capacity covers that), weight (also part of
capacity), or power requirements (power plant rules). Because its a weapon
seems too artificial, even for an abstract game.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
infantry Fire Team or
> two) since I usually start with a Size 4 or 3 * main
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:00:54 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Precisely why I never fielded it - except on paper for baiting
munchkins
- I much prefer size 3 and below AFV's... The 'hole' concept of a class
5 TD sitting in ambush is pretty funny by itself. And when I field a TD
using HKP-5 I ignore the recommended rule and mount it on a class 3
frame. And field very few of them - specialist vehicles usually end up
fighting in environemnts/situations they aren't designed to work it if
your foe knows what they are.
> Oh, and if you please, bunch up the platoon so I can
I am not be rocket scientist material but hopefully I won't give my foe the
pleasure...
> The argument was that no vehicle could survive
Most games lately have had units suffering damaged or mobility killed vehicles
near a 'victory point' spot so the entire platoon usually goes on what i call
on stand and fire mode (why? I don't know) at that location until they are
shot dead. But artillery use (or abuse by
non-use/misuse) is enough to make a GM cry for some reason in most games
lately. Must be the Nappie Cavalry syndrome. These same guys use arty in WW2
games reasonably well.
Gracias,
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:28:00 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
True. <snip>
; IMO GMSs (and SLAMs) should use reloads just like
> artillery
Maybe true but I hate book keeping individual rounds/salvos for a game
involvinfg company level combat with 15 minute (+/- 14 minute)
rounds/turns.
<snip>
> Pah. I'll bet that in at least 90% of the cases these flaws in various
Don't hold back, tell it like you see it. <grin>
> Also for the DS2 case, your point about "paper-thin armour" misses the
Like my die rolls but go on.
with *today's* *thick* armour
> materials, we
Agreed.
> Since DS2 is supposed to be a *generic* game, ie. *not* tied to a
Well we will see. Assuming it's ever published.
Gracias,
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
I think I can agree with that.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
I've looked at those, and they aren't bad, but a little too abstract, which is
different from what I mean by generic.
By generic I mean that the same set of movement and combat rules are used, but
cusomized for each setting. Things like the relative
effectiveness/statistics of different types of weapons, their
availability, etc. can differ between settings like Battletech, Centurion, and
B5 GROPOS, but the game mechanics stay the same.
Kind of like being able to adapt FT to the B5 EFSB and also Power Projection
for Traveller.
J
Same word, different meaning. I can't think of a more generic process then all
light tanks are 'light tanks,' all MBTs are 'MBTs,' and etc.
What you are talking about I would call 'universal game mechanics' since in
theory the same mechanics should work as well for historical (the basis from
which we extrapolate the other two genres,) Fantasy and Science Fiction.
The FMA rules family approach that although the differences between SG 2 and
DS 2 alone show that like Topsy they 'just grew' in an 'organic' way as
opposed to a systematic approach.
Maybe that's what seems to drive O. O. to what to rationalize them -
they are 'biology' (soft, fuzzy and chaotic) rather then 'chemistry' (precise,
accurate, and predictable) all of which fit the Engineer approach to the
world.
Gracias, Glenn
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes:
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> frame. And field very few of them - specialist
I agree. Most of my vehicles fit broad tactical roles.
> Most games lately have had units suffering damaged
Oooh! Oooh! Stationary targets! I like...
> don't know) at that
Eh? What's the problem with it? Are they just not realizing how much fun it
is?
Granted we houserule artillery to be much more responsive and flexible, so
that it more closely approximates modern artillery. But still, even with book
rules medium artillery MAK is enough to discourage anyone from staying in the
same spot for too long.
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> Maybe that's what seems to drive O. O. to what to rationalize them -
(precise,
> accurate, and predictable) all of which fit the Engineer approach to
Completely incorrect. I wouldn't mind if they were soft, fuzzy, chaotic *and
futuristic*; the main reason I want to revise them is that they're "SF" games
which are soft, fuzzy, chaotic *and very very 1980s*.
I don't consider the 1980s to be "Science Fiction". To me, the 1980s are
*history*, even if you add a few chrome details like grav engines and plasma
guns. I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim to be,
not historical games in disguise :-/
Regards,
You really like "the knife" when replying to me don't you? Oh well, I can fix
that.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:40:55 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:40:55 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>s*.
> I don't consider the 1980s to be "Science Fiction". To me, the 1980s
Well, I was born in the 1950 and the 'scientific' oriented magazines
lied/were way wrong about what life would be like in the 1980's so I
suspect we are quite unlikely to know what 'reality' in war in 2100 will be
too. Other then probably even more reason to not encourage your child to
enlist. The true science journals I had access to were not any better in
predicting the future I might note. Science is best in reporting observations
and running repeatable tests.
> even if you add a few chrome details like grav engines
Which we apparently can't agree about as to whether they should be ground
combatants or be capable of descending from space and then fighting (why?) as
ground combatants.
and
> plasma guns. I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim
All SF IS historicals in disguise. But I asked for discussion on what would be
your and others' visions of what a SF war game should entail in another post.
Waiting to read peoples' views.
Gracias,
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:47:06 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes: <snip>
> SG and DS claim to be SF games, but you can't do with them things
And won't be doing with a H. S. Calliope on the table!
So while they are good *games*, they are not good as
> *science fiction*. That's a hazard of anyone's writing science
Then they aren't Vietnam or Iraq are they?
> To fix that, something has to be changed, but it doesn't
Agreed but D14, D16 and D18 aren't common yet... Maybe a Percentile die
system?
> Ideally, playing Nam - era scenarios in SG / DS will feel the same
Agreed.
> "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like? What
Sounds good but each one of those features would require a delicate balance to
keep from becoming 'Sub Hunt on Land' or "EWO Officer" instead of a DS 3 game.
Gracias,
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:03:39 +0100 Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
writes: <snip>
> What about cybertech? Another thread talks about the US army
Makes decommissioning take on a whole new meaning. Today you decommission
ships. Then you would need to decommission troops rather then have these guys
running around in 'civilian' society.
> If cloning and braintaping is cheap and easy, troops may not care
Their computers better be a WHOLE lot more reliable then currently.
And it would a strategic counter stroke of you could destroy your opponents
files somehow.
Gracias,
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:07:34 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> You may have 1960/USA technology up against Imperial armies vastly
Yes, Levels in DS 3 should not be like the differences in each year of WW2
where a smart commander with elite troops might maul a similar sized force
with last year's tanks. You run into the difference between levels resembling
squaring numbers and multiplying them by 2. 3 x 2 is significantly less then 3
squared kind of situation.
<snip> I'm not
> convinced that it needs to be able to handle Nam grunts vs Imperial
I pretty much assume that the difference between low tech to high tech is more
within 1 level then changing levels with mid tech being somewhere in the
transition zone. Low tech is 'just achieved' the 'level' and high is 'about to
move to the next level.' And that may even be too extreme.
The problem is that if you get widely disparate levels then why bother except
for the exercise? Also you end up with the complexity of levels of Traveller.
And I assume that all the nations portrayed are more limited by budget,
policy, local politics (all politics are local) and
other voluntary factors then failure to grasp the science/technology of
the current level the ESU/NAC use. More like the difference in military
technology utilized between Malaysia and Laos then technology capabilities
possible between today and WW1. YMMV.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:48:59 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> And that's a valid view but it's not DS 3
Thought you'd say something like that. <snip>
> Why should we expect to know what future war will be like in 2100?
I think that's a key point.
> ...the better question might be "What do you (plural) think a SF war
<snip> DS2's lowest tech
> tier
Should it be that low? I guess it gives a referent to the game that we can
understand as a base.
> Then add further capabilities to that. Mere weapons power and armour
Hold that thought.
more
> important is the sensor/counter-sensor game allowing the players to
And the cycle of change counter-change would apply here too. I don't
want to play a game of "EWO" but a combined arms game. This would have to not
takeover the game itself or you really DO need a name change.
> Effective area-defence systems similar to the Slammers' "Calliope"
Today's military wouldn't exist in the game if we use the base level
suggested.
Every grunt's dream - to be rid of the Air Force. You deny the air to
SSMs then you take out the 3rd dimension of the combat. And Grav vehicles
become NOE tanks at best.
> Grav
Okay, which books? Deployable from tree top to edge of space? The you have a
Air Force game in many ways. Currently Air Forces are blatantly
under-powered in Ds 2. And they would die to the "Calliope" system
anyway.
> Create a dual unit design system which separates the points cost
Well, I hope people of your caliber keep them from becoming the SFB style
rules of creating vehicles. That's a pretty steep curve to keep simple (not as
simple as currently I know but not a binder by itself please!)
> With luck, we might even be able to push DS3 into covering warfare in
Lots of luck.
<snip>
> Bingo. Ideally the game should *allow* 'Nam-era battles for those who
Restricted, no, there we agree. But could one game cover that range of
scenarios as the Vietnam redux tech to Imperials versus Zhodani and still be
an affordable set of rules without going the GW [Spit] Codex thing?
Gracias,
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:55:52 +0900 "Edward Lipsett \(work\)"
> <translation@intercomltd.com> writes:
I remember that story.
Very fun to consider the assumptions we make that high tech always wins
easily.
And there is a point I had not mentioned. Too often we want a game to play
like as book reads or a movie plays.
While I push O. O.'s buttons to pick up ideas he really does have a very good
point. It doesn't play like war in the 'near future' in my mind either. The
thread on what it should have is interesting and hopefully the play test list
is making progress on many of these changes.
I still say the title would really benefit from a change if DS 2 was replaced
by a game like has been described. But the game would not so much be an
improved DS 2 as a radical make over of DS 2. But the name
change issue is a non-issue.
Gracias,
I have to agree with Glenn on this one. If the game loses the "tanks and
infantry and artillery and air units fighting each other" feel, being replaced
by something like nanotech and cyberwarfare, while it could be interesting,
it's NOT what I'd want to play. I by sci fi infantry and
vehicles for a reason - I *like* them, and want to use them in my games.
There is plenty of sci fi (Hammers Slammers, Shelly's Cadet, Luitenant,
Captain, etc. series, the Bolo books, Legion of the Damned, Last Legion,
FIST, and others) that incorporate things that have been mentioned in the
postings (EW, drones, different targeting techniques, etc.) without making
them the key element of the genre.
I think that there are ways to tweak, or perhaps overhaul the DS2 system to
make a more sci-fi game (as an aside, the first time I ever heard of
SGII and DSII, a friend who had played it was describing it to me. The comment
that stood out most in my mind was "It's a sci-fi game that feels like
Viet
Nam" - says something, doesn't it?) rather than a complete rehash of any
given period of actual warfare with some weapon names changes.
I like the overall system, but O.O. is right... it does not feel "futuristic"
enough given current technology trends.
Just adding a little fuel to the fire...:)
J
--On Saturday, July 24, 2004 7:02 PM -0700 Glenn M Wilson
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> Gracias,
Edward said:
> >There was a story called "Hawk among Sparrows" by superb SF author
Glen said:
> Very fun to consider the assumptions we make that high tech always
I've read stories that sound similar, don't recall that specific one. But
rather than playing tag with biplanes, the pilot should have
attacked the enemy center of gravity--the local corps headquarters,
the key railway bridge, or the fuel refinery, for instance. In that
story, he probably didn't have air-to-ground weapons, but a Zhodani
invasion force against Nam grunts probably would. There just
wouldn't be much to write a story about.
> > SG and DS claim to be SF games, but you can't do with them
Glen rebuts:
> And won't be doing with a H. S. Calliope on the table!
You may not be getting rounds through, but there's a difference between "I'll
lob some rounds over that way and hope they land in the right general area,
and please God not on my own guys", vs "I'll drop a round on those four tanks
and hope I can get through their point defenses."
(The first time I used artillery in SG2, IIRC I killed wounded enemy, the
neutral medevac chopper, and two squads of my own).
> Agreed but D14, D16 and D18 aren't common yet... Maybe a Percentile
That would be changing the mechanics, which in a perfect world we wouldn't
have to do.
> he probably didn't have air-to-ground weapons, but a Zhodani
It would be rather difficult even for John Wayne to "reach out and touch" a
starship in orbit dropping rocks on him, true.
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> Well, I was born in the 1950 and the 'scientific' oriented magazines
And today most of us are *laughing* at those predictions from the 1950s just
like we laugh at Duck Dodgers, rather than viewing them as exciting
futuristic visions :-/ Which is pretty much what I'm trying to say about
DS2/SG2 as well: the predictions they made are badly out-dated; their
"illusion of future" gets torn to shreds as soon as you compare them with
today's reality.
> Which we apparently can't agree about as to whether they should be
So why not allow *both* options, leaving it to the players to choose which
interpretation they prefer? (As for the "why", avoiding LOS can be a quite
compelling reason - there's far less cover to hide behind far up in the
air.)
> >I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim to be,
OK, so let's make them historicals in a *more convincing* disguise than the
fifteen-year-old rubber masks they have now. That was a convincing
disguise fifteen years ago; today it no longer is.
Regards,
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> >>And that's a valid view but it's not DS 3
Of course I would. It's the truth, after all ;-) (And exactly the same
comments - "it's not Full Thrust" - were made in 97/98, when the first
rumours about FB1 had leaked out...)
> >>Why should we expect to know what future war will be like in 2100?
So do I. Which is why I'd like the games to be able to represent something
*more* than just 'Nam 1979 and Fulda 1985 :-/
> <snip> DS2's lowest tech tier is after all supposed to represent stuff
For DS*2* "should" is pretty irrelevant; the tech descriptions make it
pretty clear that this is what it *is* supposed to represent :-/
Whether or not DS*3*'s lowest tech tier should be this low can be discussed,
but the recent comments from Samuel Penn and others seem to
suggest that it should - or possibly even lower, explicitly covering
'Nam etc. without even name changes <g>
> >Then add further capabilities to that. Mere weapons power and armour
Armour penetration is merely a matter of sliding weapon sizes and armour
ratings up or down as appropriate; that can easily be handled within the
vehicle design rules. Weapons *range* and *accuracy* (including the
interaction between missiles and ECM/point defences) are important
however, since they have a rather profound impact on tactics.
> >more important is the sensor/counter-sensor game allowing the players
I know. That's why I prefer Full Thrust to Brilliant Lances myself, even
though BL is an excellent sub-hunting game :-/
Many of the EW conditions could probably be handled similar to how SG2
handles the general air-defence environment, since much of what sets the
EW conditions for a particular battle is outside the scope of the DS2 game
both in terms of time (a few hours of combat) and geography (up to maybe
two dozen square miles).
Hidden movement and spotting needs some pretty serious thought to function
smoothly, but I feel that those really are necessary - particularly if
you want battles between opponents with unequal tech levels, since one of the
biggest advantages the higher-tech opponent can have is just better
battlefield awareness (and the resulting ability to manoeuvre against the
enemy without him being able to react appropriately).
> >...imagine what such a
No, but tomorrow's - maybe ten or twenty years from now - would. It *is*
the base line I suggested above :-/
> Every grunt's dream - to be rid of the Air Force.
Well... every grunt whose ass hasn't been saved by a well-placed LGB,
anyway. It would also remove the grunts' most treasured weapon - the
indirect-fire, ground-based artillery... not sure if I'd rate that as a
"grunt's dream" or a "grunt's nightmare", really :-/
> You deny the air to SSMs then you take out the 3rd dimension of the
Not necessarily, since a weapon strong enough to blow up a missile or shell
isn't necessarily strong enough to blow up a heavily armoured grav tank. In
the Slammers universe the Calliopes *are* that strong, but the lasers used
by today's area-defence system prototypes aren't.
IOW, depending on how powerful weapons *you as the player* allow your
area-defence systems to use you might remove the the 3rd dimension
entirely, or you might get a return to earlier periods' strafing aircraft
turning the armoured grav tanks into futuristic A-10 equivalents using
guns
instead of extreme-range missiles or bombs... such a set-up could even
make the current DS2 aerospace rules look reasonable, by forcing the aircraft
to
get into gun range of their targets instead of using stand-off bombs and
missiles :-/
But as far as possible it should be the *players'* choice whether or not
they want such a set-up or something else, not the game designer's.
> >Grav vehicles - yes, they're very "high SF", but they're also a stock
Sorry, I should've said "SF backgrounds" in both places rather than
changing the second to "SF books" - the most prominent examples I can
recall off-hand are game- or movie-based: Renegade Legion (which
background, including a number of novels, includes a fairly thorough and
fairly coherent discussion of the effects various tech developments have in
their background, even though its ground scales make weapon ranges
ridiculously short and their treatment of ATGMs is even more obsolete than
DS2's), Star Wars (particularly the combat scenes at the end of "The Clone
Wars"), various Manga/Anime series... not sure if they're all officially
"grav" powered, but they all seem to operate from tree tops to edge of
space. Weber/White's "StarFire" series of books also feature some
"grav"-style ground vehicles theoretically able to move into space,
though they rarely use it in those books due to strong enemy LOS air defences.
> The you have a Air Force game in many ways.
Not necessarily. As I said above, being able to use ground cover can be a
pretty strong incentive to fight down on the ground :-/ But it *could*
become an AF game - *if the players want it to be*.
> Currently Air Forces are blatantly under-powered in DS2.
In the absence of bomb/missile/shell-killing area-defence systems,
certainly. Add in such a system, and the DS2 aerospace rules might actually
give a reasonable representation of aerospace ground support - but again
it should be the *player's* choice whether or not they want such a system in
their particular vision of the future.
> And they would die to the "Calliope" system anyway.
Provided that the background *chosen by the players* includes
area-defences
as powerful as the Calliope, sure. They can choose not to allow such systems
if it doesn't fit their vision of the future; if so the
aircraft/grav tanks wouldn't die so fast.
> >Create a dual unit design system which separates the points cost
SFB doesn't *have* any rules for creating vehicles, so that's not very
likely ;-)
Since the vehicle *creation* rules - ie., the rules that define what
vehicles are physically possible to build *in the players' chosen
background* - would be completely background-dependent, there's no way
the game designers can control them at all (except by rigidly defining the
background, which is exactly what we DON'T want to do!). Each player group
could come up with their own set if they want to; and they could make those
rules just as complex as they want them to be.
What we as game designers could do is provide two or three different
*examples* of vehicle creation rules, eg. one representing a relatively low
tech base where energy generators are big and bulky (so relying on
ground-contact vehicles and propellant-powered weapons), one
representing a
high-tech environment with small and compact power sources (allowing eg.
GEV/grav mobility, HELs and MDCs), and one where "mechanical muscles"
(engines better at providing linear push-pull than rotational motion)
have become more efficient than current engines (thus making Walkers viable)
-
but there'd be no requirement that the players use *any* of these examples,
and there'd be literally no limit on what vehicle creation rules the players
could come up with to fit their particular gaming backgrounds. Of course, if
the players want to they could always use the simplest vehicle
creation rules of them all - "Just write down the stats you want your
vehicles to have" - and let the *costing* rules would handle any
attempts of abuse.
The vehicle *costing* rules (giving the *game points cost*, not any kind of
"background-economic price tag") however would be the same for *all*
backgrounds, and they would be no more complex than than today's DS2
vehicle design rules - and most likely simpler.
> <snip>
but it
> >shouldn't be *restricted* to 'Nam-era battles like it is now :-/
I think so, yes. It is to a large extent a matter of player mentality -
basically, making the players realize that just because the rules *provide
for* using this-or-that gadget, they don't *have* to use it *if it isn't
appropriate in their chosen background*. This is a direct opposite to the
GW Codex "thing", which spoon-feeds both the background and its special
rules to the players leaving very little leeway for individual imagination.
Regards,
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:07:18 +0100 Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
writes: <snip>
> All else being equal. Lack of men and support could really
Then you have a short but intense (they really hate you now) period where you
dominate then the levels are no longer much different (and approximate
rapidly.)
> Orders may also compromise the effectiveness of troops. Maybe
Outside the mechanics of level though.
> These are all special cases however.
Remind me not to get caught in those special circumstances <grin> please.
They sound familiar. Sounds like a mid-60's to 70's thing.
Gracias,
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:02:25PM -0700, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Makes decommissioning take on a whole new meaning. Today you
See Tim Zahn's _Cobra_ series, which deals with exactly this sort of
problem.
Doesn't make for very interesting gaming, though. "A twenty-man
streetgang jumps one veteran. He wins. The local media screams about 'killers
in our midst'."
R
> On Sunday 25 July 2004 11:49, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Always thought about doing an RPG where the characters have a huge technical
advantage over the enemy, but they're cut off from any support. As time goes
on, they'd have to start conserving those smart missiles and high powered guns
for when they're *really* needed. A wargame campaign could work like this as
well.
Maybe even two enemy forces on a low tech planet, both cut off from support.
Initial battles are high tech, but as the war drags on, high tech weapons need
to be conserved, and recruiting the 'primitive' locals starts to become more
of a practical proposition.
> >Orders may also compromise the effectiveness of troops. Maybe
Yep, but I'm trying to think of situations where a high tech advantage could
make for an interesting scenario.
> >These are all special cases however.
> Remind me not to get caught in those special circumstances <grin>
please.
> They sound familiar. Sounds like a mid-60's to 70's thing.
Do it too often, and it starts to become too much like Star Trek. We could use
the Transporter to finish the episode in 5 minutes, but there's yet another
special reason why we can't.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:22:40 +0100 Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> On Sunday 25 July 2004 11:49, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
This would work.
> Maybe even two enemy forces on a low tech planet, both cut off
Oh my, a three sided war (at least) appears - I really like this.
<snip>
> Yep, but I'm trying to think of situations where a high tech
Yes, and as good as it sounds it would still be special cases because with a
decent support mechanism it's only a matter of time and will.
> >These are all special cases however.
Fer sure.
> --
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:55:24 +0100 Roger Burton West
> <roger@firedrake.org> writes:
I will check out the library for this.
> Doesn't make for very interesting gaming, though. "A twenty-man
I always remember what a multiple discipline/multiple Black Belts
Martial Arts Instructor (I don't do that stuff but he was on base speaking on
an unrelated issue) once told me. Paraphrased it went something like this
- Unless they are trained as a team I have the advantage over two foes.
Three gets tricky and four is beginning to be 'a bad decision' situation.
Running for your life has a place in the scheme of things. Most mobs don't
play by the same rules as the idiots in Billie Jack. And once you're swarmed
down it is all over, usually for eternity.
Gracias,
Sam Penn wrote snip
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
I think you're missing OO's point. Yes, we may very well be quite wrong about
what the future will be like 100 years from now. But it's a good bet it won't
be just like things are today. And it won't be like it
was 20 yearsago -- at least not technologically. And
that's the problem with the game. As it stands, it tells you, "In the future,
we'll be able to do THIS! Whooooo....." And you're left replying "Yeah, big
deal, we've already been doing that for a decade."
Try using your own experience with the '50's as an
example. What if your 50's sci-fi had been all about
jet fighters ans automatic rifles and tanks with IR spotlights on them. Would
that have been very
inpressive as Sci-fi? No, it would have barely been
cutting edge. Yeah, your sci fi got a lot of stuff
wrong -- hence the "fi". But at least it made it
interesting. So the game SHOULD go ahead and try to predict the future, and it
should paint it in big, bold strokes. It may be wrong, but it won't be boring.
> > even if you add a few chrome details like grav
So offer both options. If, as OO and I both believe should be done, the points
rules and construction rules are independent, and you use the construction
rules in place, especially for limitations on VTOL Armor and weapons, you have
Grav that act as the do in DS 2. If you use construction rules that put no
limits on VTOL armor and weapons, you have a heavily armored VTOL that is
essentially undistinguishable from a RenLeg Grav Tank.
> and
Well, for that matter, all history is repetitive. That doesn't mean we should
limit WWII games to swords, spears and cavalry simply because we see the
similarity between it and some ancient campaign.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> <snip> DS2's lowest tech
I think that OO's point is that it's not even that *HIGH* as the game stands.
> --- "John K. Lerchey" <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
And I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in disagreement on this
point. But I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the
points OO was
trying to make -- an inadvertent straw man, if you
will, because I don't think he was advocating eliminating these elements, but
rather increasing the resources available to all of them.
> There is plenty of sci fi (Hammers Slammers,
So let's find a way to incorporate them, shall we?
> I think that there are ways to tweak, or perhaps
And I think there are some things about DS 2 that require a complete overhaul.
> I like the overall system, but O.O. is right... it
Agreed.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:43:50 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> OK, so let's make them historicals in a *more convincing* disguise
I have no problem with making the game "More Futuristic SF" - whatever
that means may vary - but if you lose the combined arms idea (which I
think will still be there because physical reality will still be there,
ignoring FTL as a necessary evil <grin>) for a "Electronic Wizards War"
which - in reality - doesn't require much human interaction already and
will become more automated (invisible to the user/player) in the near
future then you won't be selling it to me or others who want a SF War Game.
I am going to drop out of this thread because I've said all I wish to say
without repeating myself yet again. I leave it to Jon as a businessman to
insure his 'new and improved' DS 3 strikes a balance between SF and a war
game. After all it doesn't matter what any of out opinions are to the bottom
line. And that is a value judgment far beyond any inorganic computer to
discern. Jon will live with the results of his best business sense when he
decides what does and what doesn't get into or get taken out of DS 3.
Interesting insights were gained form this thread about what people want and
about where they were coming from in relation to more then DS 3. Including my
observations of myself in those subjects.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> I have no problem with making the game "More
Nothing that OO has suggested so far comes CLOSE to doing that, so you're
arguing against a straw man.