The long and short answer is do what you want.
The HVAT (High Velocity Anti-Tank?) weapon would easily
fit either the RFAC-1 or MDC-1. The RFAC team would be
less expensive (in points). This is justified in a number of ways: 1) The
technology is cheaper and easier to maintain. 2) The ammunition is inexpensive
and more can be carried than in a MDC squad (see MDC comments). 3) The squad
could be made smaller (reducing the ammo
available), thus reducing the manpower/training cost.
The MDC would be more expensive because: 1) The technology is more expensive
to produce and maintain. 2) The powerplant (HMT) is heavy and expensive (in
contrast to the chemical shells of RFAC) to maintain. 3) Squad size would have
to be increased inorder to transport the weapon, the powerplant, extra fuel
and ammo for the weapon. This increases both manpower and training costs.
The PPG unit would be classified as an Anti-Armor Team.
I would suggest making it a DFFG-1. This squad would
also need to be somewhat expensive. The weapon is at the penacle of ground
weapons technology. I would think that the troops firing the weapon would need
to be in NBC suits to protect against the radiation of the weapon itself.
Remember specialty teams do not have a normal ranged attack (p. 13) but must
use thier special weapon for the ranged attacks.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
In
> Dirtside, should the HVAT railgun be classified as a portable MDC-1 or
Thanks
> in advance.
Does this mean that you (and/or othe people out there) allow Powered
armor
troops to carry support weapons heavier than APSW's and GMS/L's? This
seems to make sense to me, since they're wearing suits that are supposed to
amplify strength, they should be able to carry class 1 weapons (And maybe
even GMS/H's) as support weapons - they'd still have to set them up and
fire them the way regular troops do with APSW's and GMSH's, so there should be
some way of adjusting the rules for that, maybe involving their ranged
and/or close combat firepower aside from said weapon...
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:50:59 -0500
The long and short answer is do what you want.
The HVAT (High Velocity Anti-Tank?) weapon would easily
fit either the RFAC-1 or MDC-1. The RFAC team would be
less expensive (in points). This is justified in a number of ways: 1) The
technology is cheaper and easier to maintain. 2) The ammunition is inexpensive
and more can be carried than in a MDC squad (see MDC comments). 3) The squad
could be made smaller (reducing the ammo
available), thus reducing the manpower/training cost.
The MDC would be more expensive because: 1) The technology is more expensive
to produce and maintain. 2) The powerplant (HMT) is heavy and expensive (in
contrast to the chemical shells of RFAC) to maintain. 3) Squad size would have
to be increased inorder to transport the weapon, the powerplant, extra fuel
and ammo for the weapon. This increases both manpower and training costs.
The PPG unit would be classified as an Anti-Armor Team.
I would suggest making it a DFFG-1. This squad would
also need to be somewhat expensive. The weapon is at the penacle of ground
weapons technology. I would think that the troops firing the weapon would need
to be in NBC suits to protect against the radiation of the weapon itself.
Remember specialty teams do not have a normal ranged attack (p. 13) but must
use thier special weapon for the ranged attacks.
> Does this mean that you (and/or othe people out there) allow Powered
If you do this is there much point in class 1 Infantry Walkers?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
This seems to make sense to me, since they're wearing suits that are supposed
to amplify strength, they should be able to carry class 1 weapons (And maybe
even GMS/H's) as support weapons - they'd still have to set them up and
fire them the way regular troops do with APSW's and GMSH's, so there should be
some way of adjusting the rules for that, maybe involving their ranged
and/or close combat firepower aside from said weapon...
I could imagine a team of two or three guys in PA with a size 1 weapon or
even GMS/H (maybe), acting like an non-pa infantry team with APSW or
GMS/L.
They could be destroyed like any team of PA.
With this capability, it'll be good to have Superheavy PA (takes 6 damage
points to kill), and Infantry walkers of size 2 as well as size 1.
You mean other than increased range, the ability to carry class 2 weapons,
imperviousness to apsw's and infantry small arms fire, and the fact that you
have to roll to hit them, whereas powered armor troops are fired on by
vehicles just like any other infantry?
Other than that, No point at all, I guess.... Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: Jeremey Claridge <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:11:33 +0000 ()
If you do this is there much point in class 1 Infantry Walkers?
I'm not sure about the superheavy PA or the class 2 walkers, but other than
that, what you said is EXACTLY what I had in mind.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:27:56 +1200
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
This seems to make sense to me, since they're wearing suits that are supposed
to amplify strength, they should be able to carry class 1 weapons (And maybe
even GMS/H's) as support weapons - they'd still have to set them up and
fire them the way regular troops do with APSW's and GMSH's, so there should be
some way of adjusting the rules for that, maybe involving their ranged
and/or close combat firepower aside from said weapon...
I could imagine a team of two or three guys in PA with a size 1 weapon or
even GMS/H (maybe), acting like an non-pa infantry team with APSW or
GMS/L.
They could be destroyed like any team of PA.
With this capability, it'll be good to have Superheavy PA (takes 6 damage
points to kill), and Infantry walkers of size 2 as well as size 1.
> You mean other than increased range, the ability to carry class 2
> vehicles just like any other infantry?
I was thinking more of having powered infantry armed with GMS/H
making mince meat out of the oppositions armoured units as they try to get
within atleast medium range to make their weapons effective against infantry.
Infantry are hard enough to kill in DS2 as it is but I think this is balanced
by the fact that they cannot carry anything heavier
than the GMS/L.
Just my opinion of course.
They can carry class-2 weapons & use heavy weapon range bands.
If you look in SG, the NAC PA carry MDC/1 & the ESU PA carry RFAC/1, but
without heavy weapon ranges.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
This
> seems
So you don't send armor alone against them. Send in your OWN PA infantry, or
use artillery, or armor armed with Heavy MDC's and HEL's (Which have greater
range and thus are less susceptible to your scenario), or airstrikes, or
VTOL Gunships... This encourages more of a combined arms mentality, which is
usually best anyway.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: JEREMY CLARIDGE <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:25:07 +0000 (GMT)
I was thinking more of having powered infantry armed with GMS/H
making mince meat out of the oppositions armoured units as they try to get
within atleast medium range to make their weapons effective against infantry.
Infantry are hard enough to kill in DS2 as it is but I think this is balanced
by the fact that they cannot carry anything heavier
than the GMS/L.
Just my opinion of course.
I can't look in Stargrunt, I don't own it, I only own DS II, which is why I
asked - in the DS II rulebook, the only thing carried by PA troos is
APSW's,
and GMS/L's, and IAVR's, and rifles (Admittedly more powerful rifles
than
line troops). Allowing them to carry RFAC-1's makes sense.
Class-2 weapons? Are you referring to a class-2 as defined in SG?
Because a DS Class 2 weapon qould be far too powerful and large to allow PA
Troops to carry, IMHO. I assume you did mean SG, based on the reference to a
range
band I'm not familiar with.
I was referring to combat walkers carrying class-2 weapons.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
Because
> a
> So you don't send armor alone against them. Send in your OWN PA
Hmmm I know the use of combined arms is the best way but I just feel that
given the choice between:
Infantry Walker Armour 1 Move 10 (I think? don't have rules with me) and
a GMS/H Requiring 2
damage points to kill and special chits being valid. compared to:
Powered Armour Infantry Move 6 and GMS/H Requiring 5 points to kill,
special chits not valid, most weapon attacks only at medium range, chits drawn
restricted regardless of weapon size.
Apart from being able to carry class 2 weapons which will only be of use
against lightly armoured targets (or if fishing for a lucky hit against bigger
targets), and 4 inches extra movement the infantry walker doesn't seem worth
it anymore.
I have no objections regarding class 1 RFAC's or MDC's. But the GMS/H is
a class 2 weapon so maybe class 1 should be the restriction that way there is
still a point to class 1 vehicles especially the Infantry Walker.
Oh, ok, now it makes sense. Sorry, I thought you were talking about regular PA
troops.
Yes, this does make PA troops more powerful. But you missed a couple of
points:
----Original Message Follows----
From: Jeremey Claridge <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:08:48 +0000 ()
Infantry Walker Armour 1 Move 10 (I think? don't have rules with me) and a
GMS/H Requiring 2
damage points to kill and special chits being valid
BB: Chits which to draw, you have to first HIT the vehicle. Now, being a class
1 vehicle, it's base signature is already the smallest effective signature
possible in the game (talk about cheap stealth!). This means it's target die
is D12, so to have even odds of hitting it, you have to get inside your CLOSE
range, AND you have to have a Superior targeting system. in addition,
according to the rules, APSW fire and infantry rifle fire is ineffective
against it. Infantry has to use a GMS or IAVR.
compared to:
Powered Armour Infantry Move 6 and GMS/H Requiring 5 points to kill,
special chits not valid, most weapon attacks only at medium range, chits drawn
restricted regardless of weapon size.
BB: 5 points which are drawn against you automatically, no chance of being
missed. In addition, these chits may be drawn by enemy infantry firing APSW's,
their rifles, even their small arms in close combat have a chance, however
small, of taking you out.
Apart from being able to carry class 2 weapons which will only be of use
against lightly armoured targets (or if fishing for a lucky hit against bigger
targets), and 4 inches extra movement the infantry walker doesn't seem worth
it anymore.
BB: They still have thier place, supporting infantry, which was their purpose
all along. don't forget that along with a class 2 weapon, they have
a free APSW like any other vehicle. In addition, if that class-2 weapon
is a DFFG, at close ranges this will be a nasty little beast to tangle with,
especially in close areas like urban environments.
I have no objections regarding class 1 RFAC's or MDC's. But the GMS/H is
a class 2 weapon so maybe class 1 should be the restriction that way there is
still a point to class 1 vehicles especially the Infantry Walker.
BB: If the GMS/H is too big as a class 2 weapon for PA to carry, how can
REGULAR infantry carry a class 1 GMS/L? I was under the assumption that
GMS' were more compact than other weapons of the same class. With their
restrictions and damage bonuses, GMS' seem to fall outside the scope of the
regular definition of size class.
An attempt to clear up some confusion regarding SG and DS.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
The weapon and vehicle size classes are the same in DS and SG.
Size 1 weapons can be man-portable in SG (PA or otherwise), the troops
move a
little slower, and it takes a little time (1/2 activation) to set up or
tear down.
Some weapons carried by PAs, like the NAC HVAT Railgun and the ESU VK20
Assault cannon (RFAC/1, sic!), are very similar to size 1 weapons, but
lack their range. A "true" size 1 weapon has a range band of 12" x the size of
the target, while
these PA-carried weapons would have a range band of (usually) 10" or
12".
(A "range band" is, in SG, the increment by which shooting gets more
difficult, i.e. up to one range band - close, and so on, up to the fifth
range band, which is the longest range for effective fire on targets in the
open.) Thus, the maximum effective range for an elite PA trooper firing a HVAT
Railgun any target would be (5x12"=) 60 SG inches, which translates to 6" in
DS. Not _quite_ the same as a MDC/1!
(A MDC/1 in SG, firing at a size 3 target, would have a maximum
effective range of (5x12"x3=) 180", or 18" in DS.)
I would probably classify these weapons as APSWs, but counting them as IAVRs
for damaging vehicles, possibly counting damage as if the target has no
reactive armour or APFCs, and maybe increase the range to, say, 6" for PA
infantry.
By the way, in SG you have a GMS/P, which is even smaller than the
GMS/L. The GMS/L is treated just like any other size 1 weapon.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Oh, I think everybody should have a copy of SG, if not else for the beautiful
rules mechanisms :-)
Comments marked by [Bri]
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] Agreed. The question was not from me but rather from Brian
Bilderback. Having 2 Brian B's on the list can be confusing.
> Size 1 weapons can be man-portable in SG (PA or otherwise), the troops
[Bri] True, but the same weapon firing at a size 1 target would only
have a maximum effective range of (5x12"x1=) 60" SG or 6" DS2. EXACTLY
the same as the PA-carried weapon. Granted, if the target is larger,
then vehicle weapons gain an advantage. The breakdown in the system is that
SG2 has 2 different mechanics for firing weapons. One for Infantry and one for
vehicles.
I wish that the ranges were left as stated in DS2. A MDC-1 should be
able to target infantry at a SG range of 160" (DS 16"). Bad news for anyone
caught by it, but then again it SHOULD be bad news. Now, if that were broken
down into 5 range bands, it should be 32" to the
range band for MDC-1. Against non-infantry targets, it would have a
SG range of 240" (DS 24"), and range bands would be at 48". In the Grey Day
scenario, I was TROUBLED to see a tank with a
HKP-5 or MDC-5 (can't remember) not be able to target a vehicle that
would have been at short range in DS2 (30" or 36" [300" or 360" SG inches]).
> I would probably classify these weapons as APSWs, but counting them as
[Bri] I have also thought about this. I think that a house rule could be
made that is fairly generic for all weapons that are man-portable
versions of heavy weapons (call it /p class):
HEL/P, RFAC/P, MDC/P (GAC/P), DFFG/P, and GSM/P all work as
per the rules for class-1 weapons with the following changes:
1) Use infantry quality as FCS (green: basic, regular: enhanced, veteran and
elite: superior). 2) Maximum range is 12" (DS2 inches). Simple and easy to
use. HVC, HKP, and SLAMs are not included as
the minimum size listed is Class-3.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
[Bri] Many of the rules are beautiful. However, I object to the game
divergence between DS2 and SG2. One would think that two SF ground combat
games from the same company would fit the mechanics in such a way that given 2
identical situations in both games that the results would be similar. This,
unfortunately, is not the case with DS2 and SG2. I originally purchased FT.
Then MT. Then DS2. While on the list, I kept reading posts that used the same
terminology as the DS2 game, but the mechanics and results seemed skewed.
Eventually I purchased a copy of SG2 just to be able to look up the references
from the Mailing List posts. I expected some differences, since the scales of
the games are different. What I was not expecting is that tactics used on one
game, if used in the other game, bring about VASTLY different results. When
the long awaited 'Bugs Don't Surf' comes out, I hope that there will be a
section that brings the two systems closer together (in results if not
mechanics).
> --