Okay, finally got back to playing with the NPC/PHR/LLP/et. al., and was
working NPC DS2 organizations and vehicle designs plus Space force units for
NPC.
NPC (Native People's Circle are in love with GMS/H (as LLP like SLAM,
PHR HVC, SAI DFFG, RRR HKP, and NEA their MDC's) and are big in to mounted
Infantry roles. With most of their traditions coming from
resurrected/re-invented/fabricated NE/SE North American (Cherokee,
Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Iroquois, Algonquian, Apache,) Central American
(Aztec, Yaqui, Toltec, Mayan,) and selected non-plains South American
(really weak here) Native cultures they tended to avoid the 'cavalry
consciousness' mode. Rather then circle the wagons, they went for the
"Infiltrate if you can, dismounted assault if you must" doctrine. Many local
defense units are really Motorized Infantry who do their real work dismounted.
Okay, this ties to the GMS/H (and GMS/L) issue this way:
Both the APC (Mech. Inf.) platforms mount one GMS/H plus the ubiquitous
PDS (only TD's and the smallest MICV don't have one); Armored Infantry
(a
form of heavy Mech using MICV's) have GMS/H plus turreted HEL/; the two
Armored Recon Designs use Fire Teams (FO) plus stealth plus GMS (H or L)
if they must fight; and the TD (with *four* GMS/H battery plus integral
FT on a size 4 frame) are pretty straight forward. All of the above carry 1 to
3 integral Fire Teams. It's when I try and design a 'traditional' tank design
that I run into problems because of the cheap
costing of GMS/H's.
For 'Tanks" I assumed they supplemented some form of Gun for GMS's in a
turret but retained the GMS/H launcher - what a can of worms. Assume
you don't want wasted capacity and you don't want Fire Teams integral to the
vehicle. Also assume you can have any other system as a gun in the Tank.
I looked at all three levels of PDS, an LAD, plus one GMS/H launcher
(to be doctrinally PC) and came up with two answers that met all criteria: A
Size 5 vehicle, with a size 5 main gun or a size 4 gun on a size 4 vehicle.
If you use an LAD (2 cap) and a GMS/H (4 cap) with the various PDS
(2,3,4
cap) you end up using 8,9, 10 cap total (based on PDS quality) leaving
12,11,10 cap for a size 4 vehicle with a basic PDS or 17, 16,15 a size 5
vehicle with a superior PDS. Hence the Size 4 vehicle neatly carries a size
four gun with no left over cap and not carrying more then 4 weapons and the
same principles apply to the size 5 vehicle.
Okay, the gun should do one of three things the GMS/H doesn't - more
damage (5 chits are 5 chits so that's out) or more range (HEL 5/4 yes;
MDC 5/4 yes; HKP 5 yes) or better damage (DFFG/5 yes; MDC/5 at/under
36"; HKP/5 and MDC/4 at/under 30") so it comes down to DFFG/5, MDC/5,
HKP/5, HEL/5, and MDC/4 - all but the last on a size 5 frame. I
initially looked at SLAM/5 since their closest ally is the LLP who uses
SLAM but I see no advantage for the NPC with SLAM's.
To complicate this I was looking at the NPC using an HMT (or even CFE) power
source although that's not set in stone. Assume it is HMT for now.
I see several options:
1) Don't build 'gun tanks' and let the TD's sub as tanks
(Doctrinally/politically easiest)
2) Build the Size 5 with an HKP/5 and minimal advantage for the gun
armament; Ditto a size 4 with an MDC/4
3) Build the Size 5 with the DFFG for close in increased destruction
4) Build the HEL/5 with FPG to take advantage of opposing armor choices
for the enemy * 5) Build a size 5 with FPG and take some range advantage plus
close in increased damage *
*The FPG track is less then optimal for the nation I am looking at...
Second question:
Would GRAV do less damage then GEV/Tracks to "Mother Earth" or not?
This might make FPG less onerous to the NPC design.
Gracias,
> Second question:
This
> might make FPG less onerous to the NPC design.
Since there has been nothing to suggest otherwise (radiation or somesuch?) I
would make the claim that this is so. I would also suggest that the speed and
other capabilities of GRAV make this a desireable choice.
Of course yuo could always go for 'Eagle Lodge' VTOL, 'Falcon Lodge'
Aerospace/Aircraft, 'Badger-' or 'Wolverine Lodge' for Armour, 'Wolf
Lodge'
for the LRP, "Turtle Lodge' for Amphib, 'Puma Lodge' for Hunter-Killers,
etc...
Just a thought;)
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:35:55 -0600 "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
writes:
> Second question:
Hmm, will have to reconsider FPG as power source.
Point to mention, I am making the stereotype/doctrine the fit that the
military organization adapts to and tries to modify. And one weapon system as
the main tech for each of these little powers I am playing
with. NPC was selected for GMS/H and a mid-tech level generally. The
NEA (a NAC oriented group too just more so) got the smaller
colony/population and the higher tech (GRAV/GEV and MDC) but they are
significantly less populous then the NPC; and the LLP and NPC (plus the
'wild card' PHR - high population (a whole planet plus a moon balanced
by HVC and CFE tech levels) are very studiously 'watching' them (and working
covertly to limit their ability.)
Hence GRAV is both good (less damage to Mother Earth) and bad (White Tech
- a very poorly defined buzz word) to various elements of the NPC. Many
of the more traditional elements have moved to the fringes (physically and
emotionally) of main stream NPC nation. GRAV and FPG might be the way to go if
I decide to make "Gun Tanks" a part of the NPC military structure. Right now I
lean to making the TD's into missile armed Tanks and drop the TD organization.
Of course the amount of missiles on a table where the NPC were playing
would be significant. Almost every vehicle has at least one GMS/H and
many have 2-4. Talk about arrow storms...
> Of course yuo could always go for 'Eagle Lodge' VTOL, 'Falcon Lodge'
Good thoughts. I like them.
Of course I don't want to clone The Thousand Nations. Two separate answers to
the perceived problem. TTN (IIRC) chose an independent course
whereas the NPC chose the muddy path of semi-autonomous accommodation.
Just where the line is depends on what political faction of the NPC you
follow. The NPC is (at least superficially and frequently in action) a NAC
'member state'.
Ditto the LLP and NEA. Just as the RRR is to the RH. Only the IJK, PHR and SAI
are truly (?) independent of Earth political ties. Rumors of ties to the IC by
the SAI are highly doubted officially. And the PHR are truly pariahs to all
mainstream Tuffleyverse nations. But these groups were designed first and
foremost to get each of the weapons systems on the table. The NPC and LLP are
just my favorites so more detail in required to work them up. <grin> Yes, I
play favorites. I admit it.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> 1) Don't build 'gun tanks' and let the TD's sub as
Possible--if you've got enough artillery, this is not
a bad choice.
> Would GRAV do less damage then GEV/Tracks to "Mother
Yes, it would be less damaging. Actually, FGP would be highly attractive to
any Greens (except those stupid enough to equate "Fusion" with "Nuclear
Waste"). No emissions worth mentioning (Helium, IIRC) and the fuel can be
dumped into the atmosphere with no consequences.
IMHO, I wouldn't want to try multiple differing type heavy weapons systems on
a single hull. It's not worth the points you'd have to spend. If you
absolutely have to have a GMS/H-armed heavy vehicle,
go for a size 3 with 3xGMS/Hs.
G'day,
> Would GRAV do less damage then GEV/Tracks to "Mother Earth"
Well the FPG shouldn't be a problem, but I was wondering about the GRAV
itself, after the discussions on how it might work (and reading a physicists
critique of Independence Day), the GRAV itself might do a bit of damage to
mother Earth given the "push" it's exerting... makes you feel like its not
safe to be run over by a tank regardless what propulsion system its using;)
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> Somewhere on the web ?
Most likely (everything seems to be these days), but unfortunately I know not
where, Derek might I'll ask when he gets back.
Sorry I couldn't help
G'day,
Just stealing Derek's email for a sec..
> (and reading a physicists critique of Independence Day),
The critique I was thinking of was given to me by a mate at work and I don't
know where that one would be on the web, but it shares many points in common
with the critique in "Beyond Star Trek: Physics from Alien Invasions to the
End of Time" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
Cheers
Beth
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:54:10 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Sure the big um... complaint about the plow was that unlike the hoe which only
scratched the skin of Mother Earth the Plow 'broke her bones'! Wheels, Tracks
certainly would leave 'scars' but GEV or GRAV? What marks would they leave?
Gracias,
G'day,
> Sure the big um... complaint about the plow was that unlike
Depends on the size, strength of the field (as I understand the
explanation)... for big fields think about what happens whn you press down on
a sponge cake with something heavy;)
Basically the pressure from the field squashes what's under it.
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:36:40 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
So GEV is 'better' for 'Mother Earth'?
I cannot believe I am having this conversation...
Gracias,
G'day,
> So GEV is 'better' for 'Mother Earth'?
Based on what I've read yes.
> I cannot believe I am having this conversation...
How long you been on this list? You should know better by now;)
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:32:38 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
No, not that! I mean that I am actually getting into the 'role' of the NPC so
much that I actually wanted to know the answer.... That has not happened since
they published 2nd Edition AD&D!
Next is the LLP stuff - the Latino "Sell -outs" per the LIRA (Guess what
web site I visited...)
Oh, FWIW, I think the LIRA website alternate history is more realistic (can I
say that about Science FICTION?) but the orthodox GZG history
makes for more 'ganas' for the LLAR/LIRA players.
Gracias,
G'day,
> No, not that! I mean that I am actually getting into the
Well at least you're having fun;)
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:40:46 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Always, even if... no, especially, if it's inappropriate.
Gracias,
Found a old draft....
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:36:43 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
I'll keep that in mind. The Arty area is still fuzzy for the NPC. I
would assume a majority of MLRS or (non-MD) tube Medium Artillery with a
reasonable amount (10-15%) Heavier pieces and possibly RAM Mortars on
board integral to a combat team but opinions solicited.
> Would GRAV do less damage then GEV/Tracks to "Mother
Well they have a moderately big "Semi-Green" party faction but I can
define it that way, can't I?
> IMHO, I wouldn't want to try multiple differing type
Not thrilled that way but the 4 cap for GMS/H and the desire 'not to
waste a cap' means the TD/possible Tank was Size 4, GMS/H x 4, Integral
Fire Team[Per Platoon: 1 APSW, 1 LAD, 2 Infantry] for close in defense.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> I'll keep that in mind. The Arty area is still
I'm quite fond of artillery, but then again I'm biased.
My favorite scenarios are pretty set-piece and hence
artillery is essential. Fighting a maneuver battle, artillery is most useful
for the fun special munitions you can throw all over the place. That and it's
great to dig out infantry before they get into hard cover. Tanks shouldn't
hold still long enough to get too many rounds on them.
> Not thrilled that way but the 4 cap for GMS/H and
Wow.
That's a lot of GMS/Hs. Are you using a houserule
that allows you to target multiple targets from one vehicle? If so, hooray,
you've got a bloody scary vehicle with some strange tankriders.
If not, you're wasting a really spectacular amount of points for nothing. You
don't often need to throw
more than 2 GMS/Hs at 1 target, even if it's got PDS
and ECM at a reasonable level. Doesn't hit every time, but often enough to get
your point across.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:17:17 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Me, too. My second favorite Army arm of service. But I'm a sick-minded
ex-zoomie... Death from a far (as far away from me as possible.)
> My favorite scenarios are pretty set-piece and hence
NO, mostly just the pre-conceived NPC view of 'war' - and their love of
GMS/H's. Each small national group in my mini-campaign has a 'faorite'
weapons system.
> If not, you're wasting a really spectacular amount of
I'm not quite as bad as some other list members (or Larry leadhead) but, right
now I roll a seperate die for each missile to see if it beats the ECM and PDS
high roll. Done the latter both ways, one roll (of multiple dice using highest
roll) or matched rolls (1 per GMS) burt the latter takes longer.
> John
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> NO, mostly just the pre-conceived NPC view of 'war'
May be useful from a flavor perspective, but...
<rant> Every weapon system (except HELs, but maybe that's just me, maybe
someone else plays on a pool table with no terrain and can use their range
advantage well enough to make up for the fact that they have more or less no
punch) has it's own specific tactical niche, and specializing in one
particular weapon can result in an inflexible force with major weaknesses. For
instance, GMS's are most useful when you're trying to fit a reasonable AT
capability on a size 1 or 2 vehicle, or as a secondary weapon on a vehicle
who's main focus is something else (ie, IFVs). MDCs are lethal at size 4 or 5,
sometimes a size 3 is good vs. light vehicle. So it's a great tank main gun,
less useful for light vehicles. Power requirement sucks
much bad--it's only a viable option for your topline
forces. I could do this for each weapon, but it's
pretty self-evident.
</rant>
> >If not, you're wasting a really spectacular amount
Right, that's how I do it.
I'm not as into statistical analysis, but I know that
I run 5 size-2 tank destroyers with 2 GMS/H Superiors
as a tank destroyer platoon. Until they take some casualties, they destroy
(reduce to 1 vehicle or wiped out) an enemy tank platoon per turn. More is
wasting points, less is pissin' on 'em instead of kicking 'em.