I had to delete almost 200 posts because I was busy all weekend, so I missed a
lot of discussion. But the NPC design discussion prompted me to seek advice on
a design issue of my own. Let me give you all the background and then I'll
pose the question.
The power in question is in a Non-Tuffleyverse. The Republic of
Cascadia is
located in what was once Northwestern US/western Canada. They have a
fairly low population base, but very high technology and a robust economy. For
this reason, they prefer to build the best vehicle for the job, and are
willing to pay for whatever level of tech it takes.
The vehicle in question is their latest MBT. Cascadian design doctrine states
that an MBT should primarily be able to Kill other MBT's and Survive well
against other MBT's, and any additional capability is icing. It should be as
terrain versatile as possible, robust, and deadly, with speed being nice but
slightly less important. The types of terrain it faces are very varied given
the geography of the RC. For this reason, especially since
forests are frequesnt, the Cascadians prefer Fast Tracked to GEV/GRAV
(They use Grav in the cav role). They are gaga over the MDC 5, feeling it is a
better all-around gun than the HEL (which does less damage) or the DFFG
(Which has a shorter range).
Any critiques of this philosophy, and any suggestions for addendums to it
(Other systems to add etc. - PDS is definitely a must)?
Thanks,
Just to give everyone a sample of the designs competing for the contract
(Stealth levels are still under debate):
Boeing of Cascadia BT-14X
Class 5 Fast Tracked, FGP Armor 5 Superior ECM & FireCon MDC 5 SPDS APFC
Co-ax RFAC 2 (For anti-personnel use, having to do with house rules)
Kenworth KTX Class 6 FT, HMT Armor 6 Superior ECM & FireCon MDC 5 SPDS APFC
RFAC LADS
> From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
For
> this reason, they prefer to build the best vehicle for the job, and are
> Boeing of Cascadia BT-14X
Well there is not a lot else you could do to improve that. Adding self repair
(can't remember the name no books here).
Also with all the anti infantry weaponry on board why not ditch the MDC in
favour of the HKP and reduce power needs and cost. (despite the wealth of the
nation, lucky buggers:)
Just a thought
> JEREMY CLARIDGE Wrote:
> > Boeing of Cascadia BT-14X
Backup Systems. An Assumed in Cascadian Designs....
> Also with all the anti infantry weaponry on board why not ditch the
IIRC the MDC has greater range and a harder punch at short range that the HKP.
RC's main enemy is the New Bear Flag Republic. Geography along the border runs
from forested mountains along the coast to open plains in the north end of
California's Central Valley, so weapon versatility is paramount.
> (despite the wealth of the nation, lucky buggers :)
Aren't they though?
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Boeing of Cascadia BT-14X
In my experience, Class 5 vehicles are rarely
cost-effective (I KNOW I'm going to get lit up on that
with a 10 page statistical analysis on this subject).
> Kenworth KTX
Oh, wow. Class 6 doesn't increase firepower. Protection is minimal increase.
The problem is that given the lethality of DSII weapons, class 6 armor can
be penetrated by an HKP/3 far too often to be worth
the cost.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The vehicle in question is their latest MBT.
Pretty much. Although if you're fighting in hills, mountains, and forests you
HAVE to have APFC capability.
> use Grav in the cav role). They are gaga over the
MDC 5 is the best weapon in the game for tank-busting,
bar none.
> Any critiques of this philosophy, and any
I know what I'd hunt it with--infantry using GMS,
IAVRs, and call-for-fire. APFCs are really good to
put a limit on this, as are extra APSWs. Take a cue
from the Israelis operating in Lebanon--you can't go
wrong hanging as many machine guns as you can fit on a vehicle.
> John Atkinson wrote:
My reasons for a class 5 have to do with the weapons desired. I prefer to
equip MBTS wit SPDS, at least 1 extra APSW, and APFC. The smallest vehicle
that can carry all those and an MDC-5 is a class 5 Vehicle.
> > Kenworth KTX
All true, and if the reason for a class 6 was armor, you'd have a valid point.
But again, it goes back to the choice of an MDC5. Barring any use of stealth
(which may or may not be overpriced, Oerjan will be adding to
this conversation I'm sure), a class 5 FGP platform is more expensive than a
class 6 HMT.
> John Atkinson wrote:
Agreed.
> > use Grav in the cav role). They are gaga over the
Again, agreed
> > Any critiques of this philosophy, and any
> John Atkinson wrote:
Agreed.
> > use Grav in the cav role). They are gaga over the
Again, agreed
> I know what I'd hunt it with--infantry using GMS,
Which is why the Cascadians are big on combined arms. In any situation where
they have any say, you won't see Cascadian MBT's without seeing infantry,
artillery, and usually air & VTOL support.
APFCs are really good to
> put a limit on this, as are extra APSWs. Take a cue
Again, I agree. I like the PDS/APFC/Extra APSW triumvirate for
protection.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My reasons for a class 5 have to do with the weapons
Yeah, but that's only 21 capacity points. Is it worth the additional drop in
survivability (d4 vice d6 signature) and the extra cost?
> All true, and if the reason for a class 6 was armor,
But even less survivable. It's a trade-off.
> John Atkinson wrote:
That's still the conundrum. Given my house rules (RFAC's treated as APFC's in
assault), the extra space for an additional RFAC makes it an effective
anti-personnel weapon, and the additional armor is nice (I know, 1 point
of armor seems like a small improvement, but I'm sure someone can give us the%
increase in survivability)...
> > All true, and if the reason for a class 6 was armor,
Which is why the Cascadians lean towards the class 5 design.
[quoted original message omitted]
The stealth issue is one I'm still mulling over. It depends on how much in
POINTS cost it increases the vehicle vs survivability (Monetary cost is a game
flavor issue, points cost per scenario is still a real issue).
> From: "Noel Weer" <noel.weer@verizon.net>
> with
> Here
> Noel Weer wrote:
It's close. The Stealth-2 is costing 200 pts to reduce its signature
from D4 to D8.
Equipment Item VSP : BVP Spaces Cost
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 07:01 AM, Noel Weer wrote:
Hmmm, why do I get 629 in cost from my application I wrote for this very
task? Probably due to the way rounding is done. Ack! on this size
beast stealth is expensive. Dropping the stealth drops the cost nearly 260
points. Ouch!
Kevin Walker Horizon Concepts, Inc. Macintosh & Windows Development Miniature
Painting & Sculpting sage@chartermi.net
> It's close. The Stealth-2 is costing 200 pts to reduce its
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vehicle, class 5 25 : 0 25
> all
> Noel Weer Wrote:
*Snip*
> etc.
But if the survivability of the tank goes up comparably, worth it in Cascadian
eyes. Remains to be seen....
> Kevin Walker wrote:
Oerjan's been claiming for a while that stealth is overpriced for the
protection it provides, I'm beginning to see his point from a game
perspective. Unfortunately, I'm a firm believer in designs reflecting the
flavor of the country in question, and survivability is a big part of
Cascadian design and strategy.
> Oerjan's been claiming for a while that stealth is overpriced for the
I'd agree with that as well.
> Brian B2 wrote:
> Hmmm, why do I get 629 in cost from my application I wrote for this
:-)
> Unfortunately, I'm a firm believer in designs reflecting the flavor of
In other words, you prefer role-playing and scenarios rather than
equal-points battles :-)
With the Cascadian emphasis on survivability "no matter the cost", large
financial and technical resources but small pool of manpower, they could
have just about any amount of Stealth. The only situation where DS2 Stealth
*isn't* good is if you fight point-balanced battles, because that's the
only situation where their much-too-high points cost matters...
Later,
> --- Kevin Walker <sage@chartermi.net> wrote:
Yeah. OO claims stealth is too expensive. I doubt it
for mid-size vehicles using 1-2 levels, but really big
vehicles are just sucking.
> --- Noel Weer <noel.weer@verizon.net> wrote:
> non-issues with Cascadia - I would run a point
Cost-wise, that's almost the same as buying 2 size-3
medium tanks.
> You have the missile threat covered with the ECM and
My tank destroyers can still kill them--size 2 with
2xGMS/H Sup.
> armor ablative than you mitigate HEL threats as
But still dies to MDC/HKP.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm a firm believer in designs reflecting the flavor of
Depends. In a campaign or Storyline setting, absolutely. When in a
one-off
battle, I can min-max with the best....
> With the Cascadian emphasis on survivability "no matter the cost",
Agreed.
John Atkinson
> Cost-wise, that's almost the same as buying 2 size-3
Which, in a one-game scenario, doesn't make sense. Remember, this is in
an
integrated gameworld/storyline, where points are a little less
important.
> > You have the missile threat covered with the ECM and
That is if the ZADS doesn't stop the GMS and the VTOLS dor the artillery
don't light up the TD's - again, Cascadians rely heavily on combined
arms....
> > armor ablative than you mitigate HEL threats as
Which is why I don't like ablative armor - too specific a threat for
what you pay to guard against it. In the long run, anything that gets hit has
a
chance to die. That's why the love of the MDC/Superior FireCon combo -
Increase the odds of hitting first, and of hitting with a killing blow.
Best defense..... old but beloved cliche.
> John Atkinson wrote:
Brian,
Actually, if you drop the PDS and backup systems and one level of stealth and
armor, you can get a size 4
fast tracked vehicle with a MDC/5 - Superior FC, RFAC/2
and superior ECM for about 310 points.
It will still have the same firepower and target die with slightly less
defense.
But...
If it's in character with your nation, go for it. A tank design can always be
politically motivated by some obnoxious general or political hawk in whatever
government your nation has.
> Jon Davis wrote:
> Actually, if you drop the PDS and backup systems and one
All unacceptable in CAF (Cascadian Armed Forces) doctrine. They don't have a
lot of crews to spare, and definitely don't buy into "You can buy two for one
and afford to lose one", they'd prefer to increase individual vehicle
survivability.
you can get a size 4
> fast tracked vehicle with a MDC/5 - Superior FC, RFAC/2
I'm tempted to ditch the RFAC and one APSW, and go with C4 with an MDC 5, free
APSW, SPDS, and APFC. But that drop in armor may be too much. Even a class 4
would be stealthed out in Cascadian designs.
> It will still have the same firepower and target die with
Not necessarily the motivation for such a design. The Cascadians focus on a
small, well-armed force capable of defending Cascadian interests, with a
respectable but definitely not US-like force projection capability.
One other option I have considered is asking nicely please if Oerjan will
suggest for me a different pricing structure for stealth & Backupo systems
that more accurately reflect their effects on the game.....
(is my proboscis sufficiently stained?)
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> All unacceptable in CAF (Cascadian Armed Forces) doctrine. They
How about "You can buy two for one and kill off the enemy fast enough that
your total casualties are lower"? There's got to be a break point where
spending more on defense actually hurts you, because you're not spending
enough on offense.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
:-) The armed forces may argue for it, but the politicians still have
to pay for it and the public has to approve it.
Even with two levels of stealth for 200 points, you're going from a target
signature die of D4 to D8. A D8 target still gets hit fairly frequently by the
other HKP and MDC weapons. For 200 more
points, you go to a D12 target die and an 800+ point vehicle.
Stealth provides no benefit from the SLAMs or the MAK heavy artillery
bombardments.
If you make your vehicles too expensive, it would soon become cost effective
for the CAF's enemies to use tactical nukes to take out one or more of these
vehicles. A nuke costs 1000 pts. and instantly destroys any target within 2"
of the impact marker.
Nukes aren't fooled by stealth either. :-)
> Noel Weer Wrote:
> >Actually, if you drop the PDS and backup systems and one
And still something I'm considering....
> I still think that ablative armor can play a role, and would cost less
Once I have a player running NBR or any other significantly recurring enemy
for the RC, I'll definitely tweak their preferences.
> >But...
Oh, they have plenty of scandals already....
> Laserlight Wrote:
> How about "You can buy two for one and kill off the enemy fast enough
I've played light defense/strong offense units in many games, and gotten
burned every time. I'm a firm believer in a good mix of the two. Can't get
much deadlier against other vehicles than MDC 5/Sup FireCon......
> Jon Davis wrote:
> :-) The armed forces may argue for it, but the politicians still have
Of course, if the nukes start flying, it really doesn't matter How good a
tank or how many tanks - glowing is glowing.
As for the cost issue, remember that gaming background economic cost is not
the same as points cost. A platoon of 627 point MT-5 Kodiaks is a
smaller percentage of the Cascadian defense budget than one Class 3, CFE,
RFAC-equipped, Basic systems vehicle might cost a lesser power. to put
it simply, Cascadia's ecnomy produces more "points."
> >How about "You can buy two for one and kill off the enemy fast
Brian B2 replied
> I've played light defense/strong offense units
I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that there's a difference between "strong
defense" and "excessively strong defense".
> in many games, and gotten
Can't get
> much deadlier against other vehicles than MDC 5/Sup FireCon......
Yes, you can.... *two* MDC5/SFC, with the points you saved by not
tweaking up the defenses that last notch.
Note--I'm not saying anything about specific DS2 designs, I'm just
saying you'll reach a point of diminishing returns from your investment in
defenses.
> Laserlight Wrote:
> Brian B2 replied
The question becomes what is excessive? I would argue it's a subjective
thing. In a single game scenario, using points, yes, I can see your point. But
in a campaign setting, will the monetary cost of the increased stealth be so
much that two less stealthy tanks can be bought for the price of one? I doubt
it. Remember, points reflect (or should) value on the battlefield, not cost of
production.
> > in many games, and gotten
See above. Two for one is only applicable if you're using a
point-for-point
matchup scenario.
> Note--I'm not saying anything about specific DS2 designs, I'm just
Which supports Oerjan's arguement that the points cost for stealth is
overpriced.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Doubling your firepower doesn't increase your casualties. Doubling your
firepower means you kill the enemy in half the time which means he has half
the time to kill your guys. Casualties are directly proportional to amount of
time spent under fire. I'm not saying to strip your defenses as much as some
people would say, but you have to balance things out.
> I'm tempted to ditch the RFAC and one APSW, and go
I like that plan. I'd never ditch the PDS--GMS/L
teams are too cheap to NOT buy as much PDS as you can fit.
BTW, I'm sure you mentioned it, but what house rules make you want an RFAC??
> --- Jon Davis <davisje@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Actually, if you drop the PDS and backup systems and
Dropping PDS is tatamount to suicide against any rational opponent.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Which, in a one-game scenario, doesn't make sense.
Yeah. Depends on how you figure your 'economic points'. If points translates
directly into dollars there's sense to it. If some things are more expensive
(I figure stealth ain't cheap economically either) then it depends on your
campaign assumptions.
> Which is why I don't like ablative armor - too
Yeah. Ablative is pretty specific. Reactive is specific, but against probably
the most common weapon on the table. But you can take that to a tolerable
level with PDS/ECM combos. So I end up using standard
armor.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've played light defense/strong offense units in
No one said light defense. Size 3/Armor 3 Sup ECM
Basic PDS MDC/4 APFC, 1 level of stealth is
respectable design, and for under 300 points (276 for
the FGP/Grav version).
[quoted original message omitted]
> John Atkinson Wrote:
> Doubling your firepower doesn't increase your
I agree, but some of the suggested designs swung WAY in the other direction.
> > I'm tempted to ditch the RFAC and one APSW, and go
Agreed.
> BTW, I'm sure you mentioned it, but what house rules
In my DS2 house rules, given their high ROF, RFAC's and Light MDC's (class
1-2)are treated as APSW's in close assault, and have increased
effectiveness vs infantry at range.
> John Atkinson wrote:
And against many irrational ones as well....
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Size 3/Armor 3 Sup ECM
The only problem I have with this design is the drop from MDC5 to MDC4.
> At 3:47 AM -0800 1/16/02, Eric Foley wrote:
Kill them before they kill you. In the early days of my experience with DSII I
chanced to have a game planned with a fellow who'd run a mortar section in the
Light infantry (10th Mtn iirc). He was the proverbial power gamer. We settled
on some points and met a few days later to play the game.
I had settled on a platoon of size 5 tanks with MDC5s and lots of
gee-wiz stuff, artillery support and 3 platoons of mech infantry in
size 3 MICV's with a GMSH-Sup and a RFAC-1-Enh. He settled on 6 Class
4 mechs, one class 5 mech and 4 super heavy vehicles with artillery onboard.
The mechs had loads of stealth and the class 5 one had Area Defense. He spent
most of his time shooting at the Size 5 tanks that were on a hill hull down.
It turned into a classic at long range tit for tat. I spent most of
my time concentrating half of the GMS-H's on one mech, and the other
half on another. We traded one vehicle for one or two mechs over the course of
several turns and he was reduced to running the Superheavies away.
The lesson here was that I had more firepower than he did in a projectable
form. He had powerful platforms, I had smaller but just as effective
platforms. I won by weight of fire. Not quality of force or what have you. Its
a rule that works in chess, naval gun combat and other forms...ie: if you have
more than him, trade one for one if you can. It will whittle them down.
> Eric Foley wrote:
> I'm already using reactive armor on a lot of my vehicles that expect to
I prefer PDS/APFC to reactive armor, since their cost is fixed, not
based on vehicle size, and they pretty efficiently protect vs. GMS and IAVR.
> ...but yeah, MDCs won't have armor penetration problems. These things
Which is why the CAF uses them exclusively as it's main tank weapon.
> Is- there really a feasible way to keep tanks alive against MDC-5s with
Yeah - Have the Something Else (Preferrably an arty spotter or an attack
VTOL lance) tag along in the first place. It's called Combined Arms Tactics.
After further consideration, and taking into account the suggestions and
observations I have received, here is the winning design submission in the
MBT competition for the Republic of Cascadia/Cascadian Armed Forces
MTT-15A
Kodiak. The design was submitted not by a manufacturer but by an independent
design firm. After bidding to construct it, the governemnt decided to award
bids to both Boeing Cascadian AND Kenworth.
MTT-15A
Class 4 Fast Tracked, FGP Armor 4, Stealth 3, Superior ECM & FireCon MDC 5 Sup
PDS APFC
Now on to the next question: IFV/MICV design. Requirements are
capacity for 2 infantry elements, good support vs infantry and vehicles, and
good
protection. Fast tracked base.
Current competitors:
Bid V/I-X-1
Class 4 HMT Armor 4R Stealth 2 Superior Systems 2 Infantry
GMS/H
MDC 2
Bid V/I-X-2
Class 4 HMT Armor 4R Stealth 2 Superior Systems 2 Infantry
DFFG 3 (Justified by the close-in nature of much terrain, and the fact
that they will work cloely with the big guns of the kodiak) EPDS
Thoughts?
> Brian B2 wrote:
> One other option I have considered is asking nicely please if Oerjan
Stealth and FCSs are the two biggest problems with DS2 IME. Haven't looked
much at Backup systems yet - there's not much point in trying to get
their
cost right when the costs the Backup cost is a percentage of are off :-/
Very quick'n'dirty fixes for Stealth and FCSs:
Stealth costs 10*(Stealth level)*(Vehicle size)
Superior FCS costs 15x(Size Class of largest weapon)
Enhanced FCS costs 10x(Size Class of largest weapon)
Basic FCS remains at 2x(Size Class of largest weapon)
These costs are very provisional, but at least they're closer than the old
costs were :-/
Later,
> At 9:27 AM -0800 1/16/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
How about a more compact and flexible design from Lockheed-Alvis
systems:
Class 3 Armor 3 (add on R if desired adding 9K MCR) Fast Tracked, CFE (could
go HMT)
Sup systems (FC/ECM)
1 infantry
GMS-H/Sup
RFAC-2
APSW x2 Backup Systems
205 Pts or 205,000 CR
(its a Variation on the NAC's Med Tracked brigade forces used on more core NAC
worlds for Home Guard, wheeled being the dominant form of automotive
components for
It has a very easy to maintain CFE engine that parts can be found for on any
world or even fabricated in situ with simple machine tools. Field maintenance
is a cinch. The size 3 allows for a small signature and easy planet to planet
portability. The fast tracked system allows for good floatation and mobility
in a variety of situations.
However, it does violate the size = weapons systems design limit if you
include the APSW's but I can show plenty of vehicles that include that many
weapons and an infantry section in the back. Heck the ACAV type M113's violate
this rule with 2 Inf sections capacity and 3
APSW's at size 2-3.
Cost is very basic and you get good quality of design as well as easy
maintenance. Weapons wise it can deal out quite a bit of damage to armor that
it may face and can provide very good support to the
infantry attached to it in the form of direct APSW fire or RFAC-2
fire against enemy armor. A HEL 2 with an uprated power plant (234kMCR) may be
an option as well for additional range.
Its a good platform that has been used for a mortar carrier, APC, rocket
battery, Air defense system, recovery vehicle, combat engineering vehicle or
med tank. All have common automotive components.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
*SNIP*
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> How about a more compact and flexible design from Lockheed-Alvis
A couple of problems with it from the POV of CAF Mech Inf doctrine:
1. It doesn't carry enough men. 2 Inf elements/vehicle is a fixed
requirement. 2. (Game Flavor) There are enough environmentalists in the RC
government
that HMT/FGP is a must - NO CFE.
> (its a Variation on the NAC's Med Tracked brigade forces used on more
It might be more useful as a second-line vehicle for militia forces on
Cascadian colonies like Olympia or New Vancouver.
Now, Cascadian Cav doctrine is different. The emphasis there is on speed
over the terrain versatility of the Armor/Mech inf units (Its job is to
get
around things or to them fast). Both the TG-13 Timberwolf and IVG-23
Cougar are based on this chassis:
Class 3 Grav, FGP Armor 3, Stealth 2 Superior ECM & FireCon
The Timberwolf Cav Tank has: MDC 4 EPDS
The Cougar CIFV Has: 1 PA Infantry Element MDC 1 GMS(H)
Cascadian Cav is used primarily for screening, recon, and fast response.
The most interesting use of it's grav capability was in the Second Northwest
War of 2093-2096. Early in the war, the Californians had driven as far
north into Cascadia as the old Cal/Oregon Border in what is now the
Cascadian Provincial State of Jefferson. Driving north from Fort Ord, they had
reached Crescent City, and cut off the road from Medford. They were
driving inland towards the prov capitol of Yreka. They still had naval
superiority over Cascadia (This was the last war where that held true), and
so had Cascadian Marine/Navy Amphibious forces tied up in harbor. D
Troop, 3rd CasCav, was dispatched from Roseburg, travelled west to the coast,
and went Feet Wet at Pistol river. They travelled south along the coast, then
struck land at Fortuna, Jefferson, and struck the Bear Flag forces from
behind. While the took heavy casualties, it disrupted BFR forces sufficiently
to buy time for the main CAF force to reach Yreka and mount a counter attack.
The NBFR force was cut to ribbons, and the lines were driven as far back to
the southwest as Laytonville, CA, just across the border from Cascadia. For
the rest of the war, the battle was confined to the central valley, NBFR never
threatened the coast again.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Current competitors:
I like Bid V/I-X-1. The GMS/H will add a missile system to your
regular forces and help dig out tough 'dug-in' opponents at extended
ranges.
DFFGs are good for urban terrain and close in support. Would
you consider a support version of the MTT-15 with a DFFG/4
with a GMS/H system?
> Jon Davis wrote:
> I like Bid V/I-X-1. The GMS/H will add a missile system to your
Agreed, and a possibility. The close-in support issue is interesting,
given HOW mountainous and forested the terrain is, especially along the old
US-101
corridor.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Have you considered using a VTOL instead? Might sound silly, but IIRC,
Russians used Hind helicopters to good effect in Afghanistan, which is very
hilly.
> Have you considered using a VTOL instead? Might sound silly, but
Stingers
> Andrew Martin wrote:
Yes, just not by themselves.
Might sound silly, but IIRC,
> Russians used Hind helicopters to good effect in Afghanistan, which is
Anything that works ceases to be silly.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> MTT-15A
Looks good.
> Current competitors:
It's not reflected in the DSII rules, but I wouldn't (from a roleplaying
standpoint) put reactive armor on a troop carrier. I know some nations do, but
I wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
This is not a bad design, but it's really kinda big.
> Bid V/I-X-2
I just hate DFFGs on general purpose. EXCEPT, as
support elements. The NRE's rule is 2/3-1/3, either
MDC or HKP and DFFG. The MDC units are base of fire, the DFFGs maneuver in
close to assault. You might consider this as a weapons carrier in your heavy
weapons platoon (if you have them)--it would be a good
complement to GMS teams.
I would suggest instead: Size 3
MDC/1
GMS/H
2 Teams
BUT: Here's the problem I have from a doctrinal
standpoint. If you mount long-range anti-armor
weapons on troop carriers you get confused as to exactally what you're
driving. Is it a troop carrier, or is it a tank destroyer? Do you want to
standoff at 4 km and shoot at tanks, or do you want to drive up to
the nearest covered/concealed position and offload
your infantry and serve as close-range support? Are
you wasting your infantry riding in tank destroyers,
or are you wasting this lethal long-range weapon by
using it as an APC?
Me, I figure GMS/Hs are what you have a D Company for.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know what the precise stats are, but there's not that much of a drop
in lethality.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In my DS2 house rules, given their high ROF, RFAC's
Uhhh... if you drive a tank into close assault, you're wrong to begin with.
> At 5:39 PM -0800 1/16/02, John Atkinson wrote:
Both actually. The GMS-H's are there to deal with enemy armor, MICVs,
or what ever the MICV's come across. Its a generalist vehicle. If my infantry
are holding positions, being able to fire heavy weapons at
range and lighter weapons (be it GMS-Ls, Small arms, apsws, or IAVRs)
as the enemy comes closer is good. The Infantry can't carry around enough
firepower to really deal well with heavy armor. That MICV stays next to that
squad of infantry and they work in concert.
5 stands (3 rifle, 1 APSW team, 1 GMSL team) of infantry and 4 micvs makes a
potent force in this form. Mix in 2 more platoons and a treble of Mortars in
their own tracks and you get a decent force that can close and assault
positions, defend a position from enemy armor or perform a move to contact
type battle.
Additional components are platoons of size 3 tanks with MDC4s and other types
of support. Air defense is in the form of similarly tracked vehicles with Enh
Area defense.
> Me, I figure GMS/Hs are what you have a D Company for.
Why split it up? Why not give every unit the weapons?
[quoted original message omitted]
> John Atkinson wrote:
Which is why it was the easiest system to drop from the design......
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >The only problem I have with this design is the drop
Depends on what you're shooting at. If your target has Armour/4 or less
there's not much difference, but against Armour/5 the MDC/5 is about 50%
more likely to score a K-kill - so if your main enemy uses lots of
level/5
armour, you want an MDC/5.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
Good input. Thanks.
> This is not a bad design, but it's really kinda big.
Unfortunately, with the current rule structure, it's unavoidable. Even if I
drop the GMS as you suggest and add a PDS, in order to carry 2 inf AND any
support weapon, Class 4 is necessary.
> > Bid V/I-X-2
I have considered relegating DFFG to fire support. The light MDC/RFAC
design is winning out.
> I would suggest instead:
So how about this?:
Class 3 Armor 3 2 Infantry MDC 2
> Eric Foley wrote:
Neither
> system will give you any help at all against SLAMs... no, not usually
Oh, rest assured, there are ZADS around. But ZAD defense gets diminished
returns against multiple GMS, PDS does not. As for the Adding more offensive
weaponry, I believe a MBT should have 1 very big gun. Period.
I
don't like multiple mounts or multiple offensive systems on an MBT. Leave that
to the fire support vehicles. Whatever armor my MBT has, it will STILL have a
PDS and APFC. The added protection the reactive armor adds on top of those
seems a little excessive, since I don't think it adds as much protection as it
costs.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
In addition, when calculating the difference in lethality, did John take
into consideration the difference in Range? That's what really endears me
to the MDC-5: It's ability to reach far AND hit hard.
> Brian B2 wrote:
> Depends on what you're shooting at. If your target has Armour/4 or
That is to say, "when the MDC/4 has a ~50% chance of K-killing the
target
in case of a hit, the MDC/5 has ~75% chance" :-/ (Figures taken from the
close range case)
> In addition, when calculating the difference in lethality, did John
That difference is pretty minor - only 6". It matters in open terrain,
but
not in close terrain where you aren't likely to have many 3+km lines of
sight (ie., 30" on the table) anyway.
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> That is to say, "when the MDC/4 has a ~50% chance of K-killing the
So the MDC 5 gives you a 50% increase in kill likelihood, for a 25% increase
in capacity and cost... sounds like a bargain.
> In addition, when calculating the difference in lethality, did John
A range which, while not the norm, happens often enough to justify the
increase to the MDC 5.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> So the MDC 5 gives you a 50% increase in kill likelihood, for a 25%
Oops... make that 33%. But still.....
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Scratch that, I was right the first time.
Actually the better number is 25%
Chance of absolute kill is increased from 50% to 75%, an increase of
25%.
Saying that it is an increase of 50% in chance to kill is a little misleading.
An obvious example would be an increased kill probability from 1% to 5%, the
increase is 500% by your accounting, but in game terms, the increase is only
4%.
Conversely a weapons system that already has a 75% kill rate compared to
one that has 100% kill rate - according to your usage, the 100% weapon
would ONLY have an increase of 33%.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> B Lin Wrote:
> Actually the better number is 25%
Actually, the% increase is based on the number it's increased from that's the
way you calculate increases. 75% is 25 greater than 50%. 25 is 50% of 50, so
the increase is 50%.
> Saying that it is an increase of 50% in chance to kill is a little
I never realized that accepted standard methods of calculating increases was
misleading....
> An obvious example would be an increased kill probability from 1% to
Not just by my accounting, 4 IS a 400% increase over 1 - whether we're
talking about 1$, 1%, 1 egg, 1 Narn....
> Conversely a weapons system that already has a 75% kill rate compared
Which is the correct usage. Especially since we're comparing killability to
capacity. If the capacity of an MDC 5 is 25% greater than an MDC 4 (15 is 25%
more than 12, 10 is 25% more than 8), we have to use the same formula on the
kill% increase.
Let's do it this way: (I may not be up in the technical ken of the rest of the
group, but I do remember my basic algebra) Let's go with the 50% and 75% kill
chances, and the 12 capacity for a turreted MDC 4. How many
capacity would the MDC 5 be if it's Capacity-to-kill ratio was the SAME
as the MDC 4? Lets see....
50/75=12/x
50x=12(75)
50x=900
x=18
So an MDC 5, to cost as much in capacity in relationship to it's kill ratio as
the MDC 4, would need to take up 18 capacity. But it takes up only 15.
I'd call that a bargain - the best I ever had.
The difference here is the usage of%.
The point I was making was the% chance of kill was increased by 25, thus 25%
increase.
You are using % as a factorial increase - 50% increase over the 50%
baseline.
Since there is an absolute limit to% kill, it makes more sense to use
100% kill as the baseline and count absolute, not relational increases -
so a 25% increase means 25 more percent chance to kill compared to a 100%
chance to kill rather than using a fractional description.
If a weapon system was listed as being 500% better than another for only an
increase of 50% mass it would sound good.
Or would it be easier to rate if you stated that it increased the kill
percentage by 16% for a cost of 2 mass?
Does it still sound as good if you find out it has an overall 20% chance of
kill for 6 mass?
Your usage depends on what number you are using for a baseline. As your
baseline increases in value, the apparent value of the increases goes down
(i.e. 10 points compared to 10 points is 100%, but compared to 50 is only 20%)
When rolling% dice, what is important is that it is a 10 point or 10%
difference, not that it is 10% depending on the baseline.
I don't disagree that MDC/5 is a better buy, just in how much of a
better buy.
The use of mass% is faulty for the same reason, as you get to larger and
larger masses, the amount a single unit counts towards the percentage change
decreases.
You can accurately compare Kill% to mass if you assume each item you are
comparing starts with the same mass.
Your calculation below is a correct way to compare systems - a %kill
rate to a single mass unit. In the case below you fixed the kill rate to 75%.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> So how about this?:
This armament will give you two chits drawn at 24" against infantry. (YELLOW
chits only.)
A DFFG/2 will give you three chits drawn at 12" against infantry.
(RED chits only.)
Either armament would be good, but if I'm up against infantry targets, the
DFFG range and my APSW range are both 12".
> From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
The weapons compared determine the baseline. The change between the two values
is what you need to compare. That's why the same criteria are applied to the
kill% as to the mass increase.
As your baseline increases in value, the apparent value of the increases
goes down (i.e. 10 points compared to 10 points is 100%, but compared to 50 is
only 20%)
Just as 12 points compared to 15 is a certain%, but compared to 100 is
different. But the only relevant relationship is between the two values
compared. But we're repeating ourselves.
When rolling% dice, what is important is that it is a 10 point or 10%
difference, not that it is 10% depending on the baseline.
But when comparing two guns, what matters IS the baseline.
> The use of mass % is faulty for the same reason, as you get to larger
What you're missing is that if you compare kill% increase to mass increase
using the same relationship for each, you get the same comparison as what I
did with the algebra.
To restate the problem, I agree that and MDC/5 is a better buy, but by
how much:
The original statement was that the move from turreted MDC/4 to
turreted MDC/5 caused two changes -
Mass increased from 12 to 15
and
probability kill increased from 50% to 75%
Brian's statement was that you gained a 50% increase in kill with only a 25%
gain in mass.
My argument is that this is deceptive since the% kill is based on 50%
and the mass is based on 12 mass, you have two different baselines - so
my question was is the 50% kill increase comparable to the 25% mass increase?
I argued that the real gain in% kill is 25 or 25% based on a 100% kill, this
is more comparable since the 25 is based on an absolute scale. But, the mass
is still a bit tricky since it's based off the 12 mass number, and not an
absolute.
The better comparison IMHO is:
MDC/4 50% chance to kill for 12 mass = 4.16% chance to kill per mass
MDC/5 75% chance to kill for 15 mass = 5.0% chance to kill per
mass
Therefore the true gain is an increase of 20.2% relative gain. So,
although the MDC/5 is heavier, you get more chance to kill per mass.
The two factors combined together -more mass, plus more benefit per mass
show that the MDC/5 is a more hard hitting weapon.
--Binhan
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >This is not a bad design, but it's really kinda
I cringe when I think about PDS on a troop carrier, for much the same reasons
I have for disliking reactive armor. All it takes is one minor malfunction of
the IFF system and all of a sudden your squad is
mistaken for slow-moving missles. Just my personal
problem.
> >Me, I figure GMS/Hs are what you have a D Company
That's pretty much what the NRE uses for non-PA
troops.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Side note: I'm not making up this issue. The US Army
has been driving Bradleys for 20+ years, and the
Ruskies have had BMPs for far longer. The Ruskies never had decent doctrine to
use them, and the dirty little secret is neither does the US.
> Both actually. The GMS-H's are there to deal with
Generalist vehicles are for the birds. A generalist vehicle is one that can't
do any ONE thing right.
> infantry are holding positions, being able to fire
No, it's not. Because you can't mass fires. To properly mass fires, you'd have
to deploy your IFVs about 2km back.
> can't carry around
Nice theory--but I've seen infantry try to fight and
it doesn't work that way in Real Life.
> 5 stands (3 rifle, 1 APSW team, 1 GMSL team) of
Actually, that's far too small a platoon to be effective. I prefer more rifles
and APSWs.
Mix in 2 more
> platoons and a
*Yawn*
You're lecturing ME on force composition? Have you seen my webpage?
> >Me, I figure GMS/Hs are what you have a D Company
Because then you can mass effects properly. I'm a big
believer in massing fires--I want to throw GMS/Ls,
GMS/Hs, direct fire, indirect fire, and air support on
the enemy all at the same time. It's far more effective than pissing on him.
Why? If he can concentrate fires on you (and assaulting your hypothetical
unit, I would be able to) and you can't
(for instance--fight the battle in stages, first
taking out your IFVs from distance, then gradually closing in to tear up your
dismounts) then you're effectively outgunned.
For the record, Standard NRE Mechanized Infantry Bandon (Minus) (Plus):
HQ Section: IFV, Forward Observer APC
2xRifle Allaghion: 4xIFV, 4xRifle, 2xAPSW, 2xGMS/L
Armored Allaghion: 4xMedium Tanks Air Defense Lochagos: 2xZAD Mortar Lochagos:
2xMortar carriers
Anti-tank Allaghion: 1xAPC, 5xTank Destroyers
Total points: 7,730, which is pretty much on the low side of the fights I've
been in. So to make up points, I designate it the Moira main effort and chop
an artillery Bandon to direct support, which adds another 1519, plus ammo
(1200 if I don't include smoke, which is as likely as my converting to Islam).
> Jon Davis wrote:
> This armament will give you two chits drawn at 24" against infantry.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I cringe when I think about PDS on a troop carrier,
IRL, I agree. In the game, unless some rules are added to recreate the mix,
not a porblem.
> B Lin Wrote:
> To restate the problem, I agree that and MDC/5 is a better buy, but by
Actually, that was originally either Oerjan's or John's statement.
with only a 25% gain in mass.
That I WILL take credit for.
> My argument is that this is deceptive since the % kill is based on 50%
YES. The fact that one is based on 50 and the other based on 12 is NOT the
issue. BOTH are based on the differences between the MDC 4 and the MDC
5.
> I argued that the real gain in % kill is 25 or 25% based on a 100%
Which is inaccurate, since the absolute of 100% has no relevancy to the
relationship between the two weapons. Look at it this way(Forgive the
simplistic example, but it's valid):
Suppose you're an egg farmer trying to sell eggs. One store will pay you 50
cents for 12 eggs (PLEASE noone cite farm futures to show why this is an
unreasonable price!). Another store offers you 75 cents for 15 eggs.
First of all, the 75 cents is 50% more money than 50 cents, REGARDLESS OF THE
FACT THAT THOSE 25 EXTRA CENTS ARE ONLY 25% OF ONE DOLLAR. The% increase is a
measure of the difference between the two values, NOT of the difference
between their difference between 1 dollar.
> The better comparison IMHO is:
If we applied your prior logic to THIS formula, you'd see that the difference
between 4.16% chance per mass and 5.0% chance per mass is only a
gain of 0.84% - negligible. But you go on to state:
> Therefore the true gain is an increase of 20.2% relative gain.
I see that this number is reached by calculating the percentage of 4.16 that
the difference represents - exactly the formula used to calculate a
damage difference of 50% when you increase from 50% to 75%.
Uh, yeah, sure.... I'll take both you at face value (Doublespeak works,
George!)
Bigger guns kill things "better." That I understand...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:27:47 -0700 "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com> writes:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:45:26 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Have you considered using a VTOL instead? Might sound silly, but
Again, IIRC, accentuated by high altitude lift problems on Hinds. Heck even
the Older large bore rifles could bag a Hind (supposedly) if it lifted over a
really high ridge with a determined 9or insane)
"Heli-sniper" in position...
Gracias,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:43:28 +1300 "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
writes:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Might work better there since those mountains are not, IIRC, so high as the
ones in Afghanistan (No, I have not checked an atlas; No, this is not my part
of the world; Yes, I am definitely swagging on 14 year old memories.) But I do
remember that high elevations limited the lift of the Hinds and I don't
remember that ever being a problem in helicopters fighting fires in Washington
or Oregon. But if I am wrong someone will point it out. <grin>
Gracias,
If Cascadian desire to protect their precious troops are so high then the
fragility of a VTOL compared to the Monster tank would be a drawback, No?
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:53:54 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:39:51 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> BUT: Here's the problem I have from a doctrinal
John what is your opinion on MICV's as ('steel cavalry' or Troop carriers
able to knock out Tanks) versus "Battle Taxi APC's" - where is the line,
if there is one, that one crosses over from strong but viable Infantry carrier
with teeth to the state you mention above in DS2? SOme of the
things I read/hear about MICV's sound exactly like your description
above
- Tank Killing Assault Carriers...
I have a game players opinion but then I'm a Regional Analyst not a
professional warrior...
Gracias,
> Brian B2 wrote:
> That is to say, "when the MDC/4 has a ~50% chance of K-killing the
But only against Armour/5 targets and above. Against lighter targets the
gap is much smaller. Still, the dominant threat drives the design :-/
> In addition, when calculating the difference in lethality, did John
OK.
Later,
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Actually the better number is 25%
No, it isn't. If the MDC/4 hits at 20 targets with Armour/5, it will
K-kill
on average 10 of them. An MDC/5 hitting those same 20 targets will
K-kill
on average 15 of them. 15 K-kills are 50% more than 10 K-kills - and it
is the actual number of kills that are important.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> If Cascadian desire to protect their precious troops are so high then
Not exactly how I stated it. Yes, survivability is important to the
Cascadians. But they're not competely obsessed with heavy armor - just
on their MBT's and to some extent on APC's. VTOL's fill a different role, face
different threats, and so the emphasis with them is different as well.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Might work better there since those mountains are not, IIRC, so high as
Actually, for the most part, you're right. The really tall West Coast
Mountains are the Sierras, and they're well south of the zone of conflict.
The only problem that poses a problem for Heliborne infantry ops is how
forested the mouontains are, reducing the number of viable landing zones. But
that's probably not as big a deal as the altitude is.
Another way the Cascadians might protect their own population is to
hire the Mercenaries that have been discussed ad-nauseum in another
thread.
I mean, if they have more money/resources than they have people...
that's the way to go, right?
The% points was the point I was trying to make. So the the real increase is 25
percentage points in kill value.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Flak Magnet Wrote:
> Another way the Cascadians might protect their own population is to
They have a small population, but not a miniscule one. They actually prefer to
defend themselves. The emphasis therefore is not necessarily to avoid
Cascadian casualties at all costs - they understand how unrealistic that
is. The emphasis is on making sure the troops they DO have are the best
equipped, best armed, best trained troops around. In addition, they have
second line defenses comprised of all able-bodied Cascadians of a
certain age (much like the Swiss model).
As for force projection and colonial defense, the colonies have well trained
militias, but some sort of mercenary/foreign legion arrangement might be
attractive.
B Lin
> The % points was the point I was trying to make. So the the real
Which is a 50% increase from 50 percentage points.
But I'm dropping this one. My point's been made. The MDC 5 is the gun of
choice for Cascadia.
I'm not arguing that 75% kill rate doesn't produce more casualties than 50%
kill rate. What I'm arguing about is how useful the 50% increase statement is.
Assuming that you are evaluating if you get more bang for the mass - the
answer is yes. What I'm trying to get at is how much more. 50% more kill for
25% more mass is less informative than 5% kill rate per mass compared to 4.16%
kill per mass.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I cringe when I think about PDS on a troop carrier,
Exactly how slowly are your missiles moving?
If your grunts are moving faster than 30 m/s towards the vehicle, I'd
guess that they just ate a *lot* of HE and thus won't notice if the PDS opens
up at them too...
Later,
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They have a small population, but not a miniscule
> militias, but some sort of mercenary/foreign legion
Mercenaries are inherently unreliable, especially if French. A good policy
would be to hire them remotely, transport them directly to the scene of
conflict, and maintain control over their supply lines. Otherwise they try to
take over Greece, or Cilicia.
Side Note: My personal policy is 1)never hire anyone with both land and space
forces, 2)never, ever use them to backstop your own garissons (new policy!),
3)Use them only on planets you really couldn't care less about whether the
population loves or not.
Oh, and make sure you maintain control over CLI supplies.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> If your grunts are moving faster than 30 m/s towards
One would HOPE that there's not a short in the system that would confuse the
little radars.
It just makes me nervous--but then I actually have
risked my life on the assumption that military technology would work as
designed. It's not a good feeling.
There are a lot of possible mistakes, ranging from a
shorted-out sensor system, to an incoming missle
that's just coming from about the same angle your squad is, or whatever.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> John what is your opinion on MICV's as ('steel
IMHO, autocannon are fine, but AT missles are over the top. Instead of a TOWII
launcher on a Bradley, a
Javelin launcher with 2-3 rounds would be a better
idea, with the extra space used to add another
dismount (or two). On the other hand, as much _armor_
as you can handle. Turretless obsolete MBTs are good if you don't need a lot
of transportability.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Mercenaries are inherently unreliable, especially if
The foreign Legion model is even more attractive: Don't hire mercenary UNITS,
hire individuals and train them yourself.
> Side Note: My personal policy is 1)never hire anyone
Agreed
2)never, ever use
> them to backstop your own garissons (new policy!),
Absolutely. Send them to the front while the contracts ink's drying.
> 3)Use them only on planets you really couldn't care
Like someone else's planet in an assault.
> Oh, and make sure you maintain control over CLI
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:58:46AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
And then your nice friendly occupation/defence troops come in with flags
waving and baskets of sweets for the kiddies... "Oh, no, _we're_ not
like those nasty mercenary types at all! It's a great life as a citizen of the
(name of interstellar power)!"
> --- Jon Davis <davisje@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> This armament will give you two chits drawn at 24"
There ain't much else that is better over 12".
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> >>3)Use them only on planets you really couldn't
Ummm... something like that.
Well, we just ran a scenario a few months ago involving an NRE Thematic
mechanized infantry platoon
augmented by a Swiss PA section (5-6 guys in PA).
There's this crappy little villiage we're fighting over, against Dutch troops
with alien mercenaries (Don was using some Dark Eldar troops). So we set up in
overwatch positions and send the Swiss into the town. They chuck a grenade
into the church, which sends it
flying sky-high (turns out that the nice friendly
Mormon colonist had been stashing weapons and ammo in the damn church). About
this time, the alien mercs move into the edge of town and take some colonist
families hostage. We push them back out of the town, secure the colonists, and
start slugging it out with the Dutch and their auxillaries. So then the Mormon
men start coming back. So about this time, the Dutch realize they havn't got a
hope in hell of taking the town (3 IFVs up, their armor support was down, and
my platoon had secured all the building and was fully intact). So they agree
to pull back in return for a trade concession on these fruit trees (the whole
reason we were fighting it out--their fruit had
compounds of pharmaceutical value). They help us slaughter the last of the
alien mercs, and then the
Mormons show up--and surrender when we point out that
we have their families secure and unharmed.
We never threaten to change their status. We just remind them that we have
them secured.
Final situation: Alien mercs liquidated (NRE detests aliens), Dutch troops
took light casualties but secured a trade concession (considering they were
actually working for that Dutch trade company, not the government), the NRE
got a bunch of productive colonists to get relocated to New Mesopotamia (and
spread around suitably Orthodox communities--they'll
be practically Greek in a generation or two), we got a settlement mostly
intact to start farming those miserable trees with good, reliable Romans, and
we have a legitemate reason to execute the Mormon clergy (stockpiling illegal
weapons).
The Swiss took 1-2 dead, about 3 more wounded. Death
benefits aren't that expensive. Less so, actually, than the sucess bonuses we
had to pay the survivoirs.
NRE losses: 1 man WIA when the Dutch walker shot up one of our IFVs.