Greetings, I am working on a DS2 scenario "Moonbase Xi". As the name states
the conflict takes place on the Moon near a base. The base is on the long edge
of the playing field and important to both sides (so damaging the
base is a BAD thing [_major_ point lostt]). One of the sides is a small
militia force for the moon. The other is an attacking force. The militia force
has weapons specifically designed for the moon but the attacking force does
not (but they have sealed the AFV's).
Special Rules: All: CFE power plants won't work due to lack of atmosphere GEV
& VTOL's (except Grav) will not work due to lack of atmosphere Smoke
dispensers fail to function
Aircraft are banned unless Space-capible
Only Power Infantry. Attackers: Only Direct Fire weapons (RFAC, HVC, HKP, MDC,
HEL, DFFG) Most missiles still use fin stablilization and are therefore too
unstable to be effective. Artillery system travel faster than escape velocity.
No IVAR's Militia: All weapons but SLAM (unguided missiles)
Other possible considerations suggested:
HEL gain 1 extra chit draw (or Red/Yellow draw) due to the beam not
being difussed by an atmosphere.
Comments requested (thanks)
Some thoughts for lunar combat...
Suggestion for your powered INF...make it only 3 valid chits to kill PA as
even minor breaches of the siuts will be very dangerous...
HKPs use fin stabilised sabots which, like the GMS, ill be less effective
(treat as 1 range further?)
DFFGs wont diffuse as much in a thin/non existant atmosphere either will
they?
Just a few thoughts. I'd love to see the finished thing!
Regards,
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Brian Bell wrote:
> Greetings,
Looks good - someone else mentioned PI being a bit easier to kill due to
vacumn, which I agree with - 4 points instead of 5, maybe.
Don't forget DFFGs - with no atmosphere to attenuate the bolt, they
could
be deadly - maybe double all ranges and range bands for DFFGs?
One thing to think about - moons are smaller than planets, so the
horizon
will be closer. If 60" is distance to the horizon on Earth-sized worlds,
what would it be on a moon? (Does anyone know the actual distance to the
horizon on Luna?)
Partial Earth gravity is also something to think about - you mentioned
it
for weapon use, but what about movement? Especially of PI - they could
probably really cover ground in 1/6 g (Luna's gravity). (But would they
want to? Bounding along like a kangaroo on servo-assisted legs is good
for
covering ground, but in a firefight? Some sort of travel-mode, like in
Stargrunt, maybe?)
Just some suggestions I'm throwing out - let me know what you think.
> Suggestion for your powered INF...make it only 3 valid chits to kill
I just thought that I would add an across the board 1 chit extra draw for all
attacks that hit due to the hostile environment.
> HKPs use fin stabilised sabots which, like the GMS, ill be less
I didn't think of HKPs as using fin stabilizationl. But may be worth looking
at.
> DFFGs wont diffuse as much in a thin/non existant atmosphere either
Good Idea. I also thought that HEL's should be more powerful for the same
reason.
> One thing to think about - moons are smaller than planets, so the
I had not thought of that. I will add this to the scenario. I will also ask if
anyone knows the distance to the horizon on the moon.
> Partial Earth gravity is also something to think about - you mentioned
For the defenders I would say yes (they know how to move fast along the
surface). But for the attackers, I would say that if they try to take
advantage of this "fast movement", they would be more vulnerable to being hit
(die shift?) due to bouncing off the surface. More comments welcome.
I think that you should be able to get a VTOL working in a vaccum, it
just won't be a helicopter, beside that I've just picked up a 1/350
scale Space 1999 eagle. Some direct fire weapons e.g. HVC might be more
expensive if your using points. You need something to stop the gun simply
being a tube open to vaccum when the breech is open.
> -----Original Message-----
> Attackers:
This is what I meant by unstable. Most missile launchers do not move to aim
the missiles at the target in the same way that a direct fire weapon does.
This is especially true in Guided Missile Systems (GMS). GMS' may swivel the
launcher to face the direction of the target but usually don't have the fine
motor control to place the missile on target (horizontally and vertically).
They may face the target, but relies on the missile to fine tune the aim and
hit the target. Salvo Launched Missiles (SLAM) probably have this fine tunning
but rely on fin stabilization of the missile to keep it on course. The
targeting program would also need to be adjusted for the lighter gravity (as
would any mass projecting weapon).
> I think that you should be able to get a VTOL working in a vaccum, it
The VTOLs in DSII and SGII are assumed to be airbreathing
vectored-thrust
or fan-lifted craft, so of course need atmosphere to function. A craft
like the Eagle, which uses rocket engines for lift, would work fine in vacuum
-
but it would be very heavy on fuel. Maybe rocket-driven vehicles that
operate like VTOLs, but have a limited on-table endurance? (BTW, by
"rocket" I'm assuming either low-tech chemical burners or things like
plasma jets - either could be quite nastily useful if you overfly an
enemy at low altitude....?!)
(Sorry for the late reply; my Netscrape mailer went BOOM. Never let your
/tmp fill up. Anyways...)
> Brian Bell wrote:
> Attackers:
Wouldn't the main concern with using missiles in a vacuum whether or not
they use fins/lifting body/thrusters to maneuver? (After all, since
there's no atmosphere, there's nothing to cause instabilities in the flight
path.)
So, in other words, the missiles will fly normally, or they'll fly like
big, fat, slow rockets. (8-)
J.
Ground spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >I think that you should be able to get a VTOL working in a vaccum, it
Of course, less so on the low grav moon than on Earth. It'd take less to lift
and less to stay lifted. Acceleration would still cost though.
Maybe rocket-driven vehicles that
> operate like VTOLs, but have a limited on-table endurance? (BTW, by
Counterpoint: Very visible exhaust should make easy pickings for SA missile
systems...
Tom.
> Jon (GZG)
/************************************************
After all this is Sci-fi...
> Attackers:
You would think that weapons would be developed specifically for vacuum
work. For instance, you could use maneouvering rockets and/or vectored
thrust to guide GMS systems. Also, they could be spherical, with the control
rockets gyroscopically stabilized. With this system, they could
be made _very_ maneouverable, even to the point of slowing and
speeding up again in order to avoid obstacles, curve over crater rims, etc.
ranges might not be as good, but with the decreased horizon, this may not be
much of a factor.
> Salvo Launched Missiles (SLAM) probably have this fine tunning but