Reread the rules. It gives a MAXIMUM, not MINIMUM, range. So the MDC/5
could be used down to 1" or less.
Since no dice are thrown (only chit pulls), and the number of chits and
validity do not change over that distance, it makes no difference how close
they are.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
I understand that part. I was trying to say that at/under APSW range
(12") you can use main gun *or* APSW (self turret, coax, pintle) but you
couldn't use the main gun *and* an APSW at the same firing at a target. And
that's strange given the flexible but up to 15 minutes lengtth of the turn.
You should be able to fire the main gun and the APSW at infantry and other
soft targets in the same fire phase...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:20:07 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
I am unsure that it would generally happen. People tend to stay at one task if
it is somewhat effective rather than switch to another task, even if it
is more effective, if it envolves a change of mind-set.
I find it difficult to believe that the gunner in a vehicle would get up from
his controls for the main vehicle gun to grab the controls of the remote APSW.
Then jump back and forth. Even if the same controls could be
switched from the main gun to the APSW, a change in mind-set and time
for the software to load parameters for the new weapon would present some
delay and degredation in effeciency. The gunner would be changing to a new set
of mental clues to look for as targets, a new set of effective ranges,
different readouts to indicate the staticstics of the weapon (is it
overheating? Is it near the end of ammo? Is it near the end of its traverse?
etc.). Especially if the gunner is worried that while he is firing the spitgun
at soft targets, that an enemy Deimos may crest the hill and blow him away.
The same reasoning applies to switching guns in the same turret. If you are
firing the MDC/3 at an approaching Andromeda, you won't want to take the
time to switch to a DFFG/3 (even if it can be done in 15 seconds and the
MDC/3 takes 20 seconds to reload).
As has been pointed out a lot in the DS2 turn is abstracted (hence the
variable time of a turn). One of these things is the weapons fire. Each
weapons fire is not, specifically, one shot. It represents the effectiveness
of the weapon, gunner and vehicle driver over the entire time frame of the
turn. It's not just that you fire your HVC/2 at the Paladin. It is that
you maneuver around the defile for a clean shot, fire, but miss, evade while
reloading, and fire again, this time tagging it dead center.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:34:38 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
Soft targets with IAVR's.
But again I figure either the commander has the APSW control with the gunner
the main gun or they are on the same console. With the AI
tracking everything flawlessly behind hills/ridges and through woods
this must be almost a HUD like display for the crew members (how those this
integrate with the Mark-1 eyeball?) And implies they have some
awesome
game consoles in their off-duty hours... AI as smart as it is presented
should be calculating threats and possible responses in the background while
the main processor(s) deal with what the humans are interested in.
YMMV.
> The same reasoning applies to switching guns in the same turret. If
Same target, the parameters known, the AI should have produced answers for
both guns and sequenced them (subject to override) sequentially for maximum
'effectiveness' and it should take only a second for the fire to 'ripple'
towards the target. YMMV.
> As has been pointed out a lot in the DS2 turn is abstracted (hence the
To a point I agree with your logic. And it is a great granularity for this
level of game.
But in this abstracted turn and considering the supposed high level of AI that
never loses track of a squad that goes into a woods or a vehicle that goes
behind a hill, I think it would be child's play to figure out the parameters
for firing two dissimilar weapons (MDC and DFFG) in the same turret at the
same target.
Multiple targets, yes, this is too in game terms (Ryan and I have been
having an interesting off-line discussion on this topic) compared to
single turret configurations; but two weapons at the same target shouldn't be
so difficult if the AI can never lose track of a target once it is spotted by
any unit. [Guess no one uses ASAT weapons in the future...] but I only plan to
use these dissimilar configurations in
local games where a house rule will cover this configuration/situation.
I know, easy way out but if you come to Saint Louis and play in one of my
campaign based scenarios involving these designs (not all that common, IIRC
only two forces use them at all and not everything is that way) be sure and
read the house rule for this.
Of course if one wants to begin edging ever so slightly into WRG or
"SFB-DS2" situations you could penalize one or both weapons with a
modifier... "Grasshopper, that is how the decay starts, one small modifier at
a time..."
Gracias,
I'd like to ask some Vietnam Tankers about this as its right there with what
they were doing, but I'll extrapolate.
> At 11:34 AM -0400 7/20/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Agreed.
> I find it difficult to believe that the gunner in a vehicle would get
The gunner is going to stay at the Gunner Station, if the commander wants him
to engage infantry targets with an MG, he'll be using the Coax. One of the two
weapons up on the turret roof are for the Loader
and/or the Commander (depends on the tank, some have both..). In
general practice, both have MGs for engaging various types of targets from
infantry to aircraft.
> The same reasoning applies to switching guns in the same turret. If you
This isn't what I'm opposed to per say. Its no different than the Commander
Saying
BMP in the OPEN, 2 o'clock, HEAT! and 9 seconds later saying T72 on the crest,
12 o'clock SABOT!
Switching targeting modes/magnification levels for the gunner isn't a
big deal. He's got to adjust the train/elevation anyhow (as does the
targeting computer based on target range/speed and other factors like
crosswind.
An NAC TC ordering one target to be engaged with a HEL in one moment then as a
new threat pops up orders a different weapon isn't much of a change.
I'm assuming both occur over the different "turns".
> As has been pointed out a lot in the DS2 turn is abstracted (hence the
Good concept in the abstract. However that does go against the principle of a
vehicle with different weapons engaging a target over that slightly longer
abstracted phase.
> At 12:10 PM -0400 7/20/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
If the AIs are that smart, why does the Platoon Leader or an FO need to call
artillery fire? Why can't the AI's do it while that Eurie Tank Btn is in its
assembly area?
> But in this abstracted turn and considering the supposed high level of
Again though, different time of flights/bearing angle etc. You're
still getting two for one in this deal.
> Multiple targets, yes, this is too in game terms (Ryan and I have been
I have a feeling that what the AI's are seeing is a collection of fuzzy data
provided by a collection and collation of all the various bits of data on Red
Force ( and Blue) dispositions via the networked Blue force Sensors. Its still
fuzzy data due to time distribution lag and errors. Were it not error prone
then you'd not need artillery FOs at all to land a barrage on the Red Force's
C4I units every time they went on the air, add to that, counter battery would
be trivial.
Also, I imagine Satellites tend to have a short life given fighters could pop
up there and intercept them fairly easily. We can do it now if we really want
to. I bet you $10 if Iraq had its own Satellites that were theirs exclusively
and were using them to track a Carrier Battle group for targeting purposes the
Airforce would have knocked that sucker down.
> local games where a house rule will cover this configuration/situation.
I'd rather integrate other weapons into the basic scheme. Napalm,
Ripplebombing, Cluster Bombs, Beehive rounds, and Aircraft Gunships (Aerospace
fighter with side firing weapons that will loiter on the table for 2
consecutive turns...)
Speaking of which...Those extras are still on my web site. Some of you may
remember these from a few years ago. I've only really played around with the
gun ships, which seem to work really well and seem balanced if there is air
defense on the table.