I just recently bought Dirtside II and have a question or two for anyone to
reply to.
1. I noticed or that there is no mention of the use of Anti-Tank
guns like the old german WWII Pak 7.5 or the such. With ECM and PDS working so
well I would have thought that the AT gun would make a come back since Guided
Missiles are not as guaranteed of a hit as they use to.
2. I thought I read in DS II something about Gun Towers and the such in the
book but now no matter how many times I re read it I can not find
it??
p.s. Jon Tuffley and Mike Elliott have done a great job with this set of
rules...
I just recently bought Dirtside II and have a question or two for anyone to
reply to.
1. I noticed or that there is no mention of the use of Anti-Tank
guns like the old german WWII Pak 7.5 or the such. With ECM and PDS working so
well I would have thought that the AT gun would make a come back since Guided
Missiles are not as guaranteed of a hit as they use to.
2. I thought I read in DS II something about Gun Towers and the such in the
book but now no matter how many times I re read it I can not find
it??
p.s. Jon Tuffley and Mike Elliott have done a great job with this set of
rules...
> Paul Frigo wrote:
> 1. I noticed or that there is no mention of the use of
Towed AT guns could be extrapolated out from the towed artillery rules,
at least for HVC/HKP/DFFG weapons. I decline to speculate on energy
requirements for towed MDCs or HELs--if you've got that much tech and
money, you ought to stick it on a vehicle.
> Paul Frigo wrote:
> I just recently bought Dirtside II and have a question or two for
I understand where you are coming from, however even in WWII most military
forces were realizing that towed ATGs were becoming useless, except for
defense. I doubt that any of the major powers would build the things (why?
just
spend the money on more tanks- they are better protected, more mobile,
and more
flexible). On the defense, and in a prepared defense/ambush, the ATG is
useful... until the situation gets really fluid... then they are rather
useless. And in DS II, action is very rapid! Your ATG unit would get a shot or
two before your opponent drops arty on it, or before it is totally flanked.
If ATGs do exist, then they are probably only in use with militia and very
third rate units. As for rules, I would say use the rules for towed artillery
on page 12, item vi. Make sure before you play that you and your opponents
agree on some rules for prime movers! When things get really hot, your ATGs
are gonna need to move quick! (an oxymoron for ATGs by the way:)
> Paul Frigo <paulf@defcen.gov.au> wrote:
AT Guns are not very mobile, so that they are easily eliminated by the enemy.
Designing them is easy, just pay the cost of the weapon system, and for the
truck with sufficient spare capacity to hold the AT Gun. The wheeled platform
the AT gun is on and the truck towing equipment is free. Only use
this system for non-powered weapon systems, like HVC, HKP or GMS.
> 2. I thought I read in DS II something about Gun Towers and such in the
Neither can I, but then I only spent a few minutes looking for it in the DSII
book. For designing a gun tower, it's a stationary vehicle built with no
mobility system.
By the way, I have some enhancements to DSII that you might like to have a
look at, here:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Also, check out John Atkinson's site, which has some engineering enhancements
to DSII, you can find his site from the web ring. Hope this helps!
> Paul Frigo wrote:
My copy isn't here but it does mention towed guns. Armor Class 0 targets, not
really encouraging but perhaps cheap enough.
In a message dated 99-02-10 08:44:05 EST, you write:
<<
If ATGs do exist, then they are probably only in use with militia and very
third rate units. As for rules, I would say use the rules for towed artillery
on page 12, item vi. Make sure before you play that you and your opponents
agree on some rules for prime movers! When things get really hot, your ATGs
are gonna need to move quick! (an oxymoron for ATGs by the way:)
> [quoted text omitted]
I'd like to see towed ATG's and other non-self propelled support weapons
just for those reasons, i.e. Militia units and lower tech forces. Towed
weapons could still play a useful role in certain types of terrain such as
cities, jungles and mountains particulary if your opponent has only so much in
the way of aerospace support and ground mobile assets to spread around. While
I
agree the weapons systems that are self-propelled can be brought to bear
more quickly and are more likely to survive on a modern (and future)
battlefield they may still have advantages in certain situations. Besides,
doesn't the rule book (if not the rules) imply their use? I seem to recall an
illustration showing a group of soldiers hauling some sort field gun into
place.
Perry
> Perry wrote:
Page 7 at the bottom. It's an antigrav supported anti-tank gun. The
guy in the middle looks like he's pushing the invisible wheel.
In a message dated 99-02-10 19:57:15 EST, you write:
<< I'd like to see towed ATG's and other non-self propelled support
weapons just for those reasons, i.e. Militia units and lower tech forces.
Towed weapons could still play a useful role in certain types of terrain such
as cities, jungles and mountains particulary if your opponent has only so much
in the way of aerospace support and ground mobile assets to spread around.
While I
agree the weapons systems that are self-propelled can be brought to
bear more quickly and are more likely to survive on a modern (and future)
battlefield they may still have advantages in certain situations. Besides,
doesn't the rule book (if not the rules) imply their use? I seem to recall an
illustration showing a group of soldiers hauling some sort field gun into
place.
Perry >>
In Steel Panthers II the Anti-Tank guns a very usefull idea, they work
really well with Air Defence Vehicles and a slope that you can hide behind. I
have done a little bit of simming with DS2 with this idea, and it works,
something that Gawain will be using to defend its self from the NAC forces.
-Stephen
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> In Steel Panthers II the Anti-Tank guns a very usefull idea, they work
Steel Panthers is really starting to get on my nerves... Steel Panthers is
missing a number of vital elements, including real aerial reconaissance and
IPB, as well as mangling the relationships of various units (note recent
discussion about Patriot batteries providing direct support to a maneuver
batallion, which would only happen in someone's
drug-induced fantasies). In a DSII environment with drones, 100%
orbital recon coverage (at least for a set-piece planetary assault--I
wouldn't put troopers on the ground until I had plinked all the bad guy's
sattelites and had mine in place), and a lot of aerospace fighters, the
reverse slope defense is going to be damned difficult. It relys on the bad
guys coming over the ridge from the right direction, fat dumb and happy, and
blundering into the kill zone. With decent intel, he's going to maneuver to
come at you from a different angle. And you can't shift your forces to meet
him, because your prime movers are trucks, and trucks tend to die rather
loudly when they get in front
of tanks. This sucks for the AT gunners--when their prime mover dies,
I'd have them rolling a TL+3 confidence check.
Final Note: Nickname of Russkie towed AT units in WWII was "Farewell,
Motherland".
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
Be careful. It may become a US Army requirement to use SPII. From the US Army
Armour magazine on the Fort Knox web site:
Using Computer Wargames
To Train at the Co/Tm Level
by Captain Darren P. Fitz Gerald and Captain James E. Ward
...
This article describes how commercial computer wargames might be used at the
company/team level as an additional or
alternative training tool and to address the feasibility of fielding
commercial wargames for training soldiers at company level and below.
...
Two of the computer wargames currently available that can be used to train
at the company/team level are Steel Panthers
II, from SSI, and TacOps, from Arsenal Publishing. Both are ground warfare
simulators employing a modern database of weapons and equipment in an
effort to accurately depict modern tacti-cal
combat. Steel Panthers II allows you to portray any of the major military
powers and contains virtually all of the equipment fielded from the end of
World War II to today. The gameÂs strengths lie in its graphics and sounds,
providing the user with detailed icons for each piece of equipment and
accurate battlefield sound effects. Another strength of Steel Panthers II is
the flexibility of its battle editor. The user can create his own maps, orders
of battle, and tactical situations, as desired. One drawback to Steel Panthers
II is that its reliance on Âturn-basedÂ
play  where one player moves and/or
shoots all of his equipment and then the other player, or computer, does the
same  does not accurately depict the fluidity of the modern battlefield.
...
By using the respective gameÂs scenario/
battle editors, each may be used to simulate any number of tactical situations
at the CO/TM level. As an example,
consider the breaching of a tactical obstacle. Prior to going to the field for
CO/TM lane training, a company commander
can use the game as a walk-through
rehearsal of the breaching operation. He can create or load a map that
represents the nature of the terrain his unit is preparing to train on, and
then he can create an order of battle representing
the task organization of his CO/TM. Additionally,
he can also dictate the composition and disposition of the OPFOR and the
layout of the obstacle for the scenario.
There's more in the actual article. Plus lots of other interesting articles.
:-)
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
> units (note recent discussion about Patriot batteries providing direct
Now, now, calm down. :-) Remember that both DSII and SPII/SPIII
allows the player to do this. I and Stephen don't have the experience of
military hierachy to guide or hinder us. We're just doing what's effective,
which, I'm sure, effective generals through out history have done. Military
hierachy or no military hierachy.
> In a DSII environment with drones, 100%
> and a lot of aerospace
It
> relys on the bad guys coming over the ridge from the right direction,
Yes. That's what it relies on, WWII or second wave style of fighting,
not info-war or third wave fighting. See Alvin Toffler.
> With decent
Why not use the immobilised vehicle rule towards the back of the DSII rule
book? It's a standard rule and gets rid of the AT gun crew quicker.
> Stephen <DracSpy@aol.com> wrote:
For DSII, watch out for the VTOL-mounted artillery observer staying
out of range of your ADS and then spotting artillery so as to land on top of
your ADS and then your anti-tank guns in the following round. DSII is
more
info-war, third-wave style fighting, while SPII and SPIII are second
wave fighting.
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
> Be careful. It may become a US Army requirement to use SPII. From
No it won't. A lot of things get written up in Armor magazine, and Engineer,
and Infantry, et al. They don't all happen. I saw a fascinating proposal to
add a recon platoon to divisional Engineer batallions. Should happen, but
won't.
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
IPB isn't a thing, it's a procedure. Intelligence Preparation of the
Battlefield.
> >units (note recent discussion about Patriot batteries providing
DSII doesn't. In fact, DSII is very light on air defense. You wanna say "DSII
with my house rules based on Steel Panthers."
> hierachy to guide or hinder us. We're just doing what's effective,
This is exactally my point. You're focusing on your little computor screen,
and making decisions based on that, without knowing exactally A: What the
Patriot is used for doctrinally, B: How many Patriots are in
the inventory, C:How many Patriots are likely to be in-theater, D:
Whether or not there are more important targets, etc. If you've got
three Patriot Brigades in-theater, they are going to be defending ports,
air bases, and major headquarters, not some armored batallion. They've got
organic air defense platoons, the division has air defense units (although US
Air Defense Artillery has been a bit anemic at this level. Stinger is
wonderful, but it's not appropriate at that level). You don't have the big
picture.
> Yes. That's what it relies on, WWII or second wave style of
Which book did he write? The name is familliar.
> Why not use the immobilised vehicle rule towards the back of the
Heh... Good idea.
> Los wrote:
> > IPB isn't a thing, it's a procedure. Intelligence Preparation of
I'd like some sort of intel at all--like maybe an idea what is coming
down at me (there is a difference between my response to a T-72 company
and my response to a brigade of Iraqi militia).:)
> For expanded reading on US Army simulations and their flaws and
That's a really interesting book, which points up a lot of flaws in how people
view battlefields.
In a message dated 99-02-11 12:55:48 EST, you write:
<< That's a really interesting book, which points up a lot of flaws in how
people view battlefields.
John M. Atkinson >> What are some of those flaws?
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-11 03:59:26 EST, you write:
<< For DSII, watch out for the VTOL-mounted artillery observer
staying out of range of your ADS and then spotting artillery so as to land on
top of
your ADS and then your anti-tank guns in the following round. DSII is
more
info-war, third-wave style fighting, while SPII and SPIII are second
wave fighting. >> Wasn't there some talk abouta THEL? I did not pay much
attenchion to it, but it sounded as if it was a Arty intersecptor.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-11 03:59:19 EST, you write:
<< Now, now, calm down. :-) Remember that both DSII and SPII/SPIII
allows the player to do this. I and Stephen don't have the experience of
military hierachy to guide or hinder us. We're just doing what's effective,
which, I'm sure, effective generals through out history have done. Military
hierachy or no military hierachy. >> Well, I would not call all of the things
that I have thought about dong "effective" as I recall all of my Mauler
designs got toasted. The
Anti-Tank
Vehicle that the UBW is using is basedon the Chavielr (sp) from Exsplore Corps
(by Fasa Corp). It is size 4, mountes a HEL/4 with two GSM/H or a HEL/5
with
two GSM/L and an APFC, if any one wants a combat TW&O of the Unit email
me off list.
-Stephen
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
Maybe he means having the ability to do an IPB before the scenario starts? For
instance you could select a number of overlay filters on the planning map
before the scenario action starts that tells you stuff like
no go-slow/go terrain blah blah blah (won't bore you with all the
particulars)
Re: SP and Tacops. I've aloways liked Tacops (and SP) and have participated in
some excellent CP exercizes using TACOPS. It has one
major flaw however: NO F***ING MORALE RULES! (besides individual-vehicle
suppression). This comes form the long standing military mentality not to
model morale in their simulations since it's not easily quantifiable like
ballistics and penetration tables are. SO they leave them out. Of course the
complete absence of morale considerations make sthe sim's accuracy ten times
more questionable than if you had something in them. I've gone round and round
with the Major over this.(He designed TACOPS). Hence fights tend to be battles
of annihlation. Even if you shoot out every BMP in an advancing MRB or a US
bn, sure enough the little snuffy will get out and go chugging along into the
face of murderous fire until they're wiped out. Supposedly Morale rules will
be included (optional) in the next release if it ever sees the light of day
For expanded reading on US Army simulations and their flaws and strengths read
Robert Leonards:" The Art of Manuever."
Despite that I've also had some fun multiplayer games of TACOPS. You may not
be able to affect the minds of your little silicon troops but you can sure
screw with teh mind of a human commander....
> DracSpy wrote:
<< For DSII, watch out for the VTOL-mounted artillery observer staying
out
> of range of your ADS and then spotting artillery so as to land on top
> more info-war, third-wave style fighting, while SPII and SPIII are
> Wasn't there some talk abouta THEL? I did not pay much attenchion to
it, but it sounded as if it was a Arty intersecptor.
The THEL isn't a DSII system, so unless you create house rules for it you
can't use it in DSII. It is under development (or already ready for
deployment, if you believe TWA) in the real world - and in some areas,
the real world is outpacing DSII :-/
Regards,
> Yes. That's what it relies on, WWII or second wave style of
The Third Wave, Future Shock, and another book, which is titled something like
Third Wave Warfare or some thing similar. This last book describes infowar.
> Heh. . . Good idea.
Thanks!
In a message dated 99-02-11 18:29:18 EST, you write:
<< The Third Wave, Future Shock, and another book, which is titled
something like Third Wave Warfare or some thing similar. This last book
describes infowar. >> Future Shock, Wasn't that a movie?
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-11 16:51:03 EST, you write:
<< The THEL isn't a DSII system, so unless you create house rules for it you
can't use it in DSII. It is under development (or already ready for
deployment, if you believe TWA) in the real world - and in some areas,
the real world is outpacing DSII :-/
> [quoted text omitted]
What is a THEL?
-Stephen
> DracSpy wrote:
> << The THEL isn't a DSII system, so unless you create house rules for
> What is a THEL?
You snipped your own quote, but you already said it yourself: a weapon system
designed to shoot down incoming artillery rounds.
I don't have the URL handy any longer, but it should be somewhere on the
TWA homepage (http://www.twa.com and then down one of the options).
Regards,
What has the TWA airline got to do with Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)
anti-artillery systems? Is this a new way to get rid of the competition
;-0
> TWA homepage (http://www.twa.com and then down one of the options).
THEL is a joint U.S./Israeli effort to develop a laser to protect Israel
against the
Katusha missile threat http://www.smdc.army.mil/THEL.html
> Tim Jones wrote:
> What has the TWA airline got to do with Tactical High Energy Laser
competition ;-0
Temporary brain-death caused by getting all my food back the wrong way
for a day or so :-/ You're right, of course. I mixed TWA up with TRW
(who build the THEL), and was thinking of the TRW THEL page at
http://www.trw.com/seg/sats/THEL.html
rather than a on-line air-line office <g>
> THEL is a joint U.S./Israeli effort to develop a laser to protect
Nice to see the military thoughts on it, and not just the manufacturer's
advertisments :-)
Later,
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Andrew & Alex wrote:
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
i remember reading (in Wired, ages ago, before i realised it was mostly
garbage :-) that the USMC had patched Doom to be a simulation of
building-clearing operations. it was a cheap and nasty sort of effort,
but it was apparently far more realistic (in terms of the feel and tactics, if
not the details) than the million-dollar studies done at fort knox and
so on. basically, this was because it was almost impossible to stay alive for
more than thirty seconds...
Tom
> i remember reading (in Wired, ages ago, before i realised it was mostly
I thought Los mentioned at one stage using Quake or another clone program to
practise house clearing exercises and coordination?
In a message dated 99-02-12 03:58:41 EST, you write:
<< You snipped your own quote, but you already said it yourself: a weapon
system designed to shoot down incoming artillery rounds.
I don't have the URL handy any longer, but it should be somewhere on the
TWA homepage (http://www.twa.com and then down one of the options).
> [quoted text omitted]
Thanks.
-Stephen
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> garbage :-) that the USMC had patched Doom to be a simulation of
I'd imagine Rainbow 6 would be much better at this...
> not the details) than the million-dollar studies done at fort knox and
hmm.... now how does this affect morale?