> GMS are *already* affected by ECM, and Superior ECM is much, *much*,
On a size 4 tank superior ECM reduces the chance of being hit by between 22.5%
and 30%. Level 3 stealth reduces the chance of being hit by between 12.5% and
25%. So not only is it less effective it is also more than FIVE times more
expensive.
A tank can also obtain poor mans stealth. ie. Hide in a forest/buildings
Evasive driving, digging a hole and hiding in it. All of which are pretty
cheap. (except for digging the hole)
But the only poor mans ecm is an ADS vehicle, a PDS or popping smoke. The ADS
is very expensive and variable compared to how many people want you dead. A
PDS is very very expensive since it takes not only points but space as well.
And smoke only protects from frontal fire.
> First, combining Stealth and ECM into one system (with 4 or 5 levels,
You are forgetting Size in your calculations. IF a GMS system is defended
against by "defence"(size modified by a combined stealth/ECM) + PDS and
a direct fire weapon is defended against by "defence" + "mobility" or
"terrain". And ECM IS NOT an integral part of the chassis. Then there are 30
levels to balance. (Since each size will have a different multiplicative cost
due to greatly differing returns)
If on the other hand ECM IS an integral part of the chassis. You have your
original 4 or 5 level, but you end up with the a design system that starts
growing Gouda from its chin. Since a Jeep is now inherently
as stealthy as a F111. Give that jeep a GMS/H with a decent fire control
and you need never use a main battle tank again. Or on the other hand you
get a lo-tech army that finds it cheaper to build MBT's than Jeeps.
(Just imagine what traffic cops would have to put up with in that country)
> But certain
We play on a 6 by 4 table starting on the short sides. So he tends to get a
reasonable few licks in before i get close. Mainly by oppurtunity fire.
His main problem is not the shooting nitty-gritty stuff, but the fact
that his tactical options are so limited. He has to spread out enough so that
arty don't get the whole force but still keep close enough that he doesn't
get picked off bit by bit. (Air-dropped mines totally scupper him)
Graeme, you seem to have missed the underlying reason for my DSII questions:
I'm revising the entire DSII vehicle design and points cost system, because
the current one doesn't work. This revision is by no means [OFFICIAL], of
course.
The fact that I am revising it means that your use of the *current* points
costs of various systems to describe why my suggested *modified* systems won't
work or balance is... not very meaningful. The costs of the modified systems
are after all highly unlikely to be the same as
the cost of the current systems :-/
> Graeme Bradbury wrote:
> GMS are *already* affected by ECM, and Superior ECM is much,
First, this is exactly the reason why Superior ECM is very common and
Level-3 Stealth isn't in the current system. The points costs in the
current system have no relevance whatsoever to the totally-revised
system I'm working on.
What you said was that I risk to "turn GMS into a direct fire weapon that is
also affected by ECM, which means infantry turn into dog food
since they now have no long ranged anti-tank weaponry."
Ah, OK - if you thought that the GMSs would be degraded by *both*
Stealth *and* ECM effects, this comment makes sense. That was never in
consideration; the combined Stealth/ECM system would work as the
current ECM vs GMSs and as the current Stealth vs direct-fire weapons.
Second and more importantly, you're looking at the wrong figures. The
*absolute* reduction in the enemy's hit probability (ie, the difference
between hit rate A and hit rate B) is irrelevant for the value of a defensive
system; what is important is instead the *ratio* between the two hit rates
(or, conversely, the percentage increase of the shots he needs to fire to
achieve one hit).
Which is better - a system which increases the number of shots you need
to fire to get on average one hit from 4 to 8, or the one which increases the
number of shots from 1.33 to 2.22? The first reduces the enemy's hit
probabilty from 25% to 12.5%, while the other reduces it
from 75% to 45% - but the enemy must fire twice as many shots to
compensate for the first, while he only needs 5/3 as many shots to
compensate for the second.
Looking at the relative modifications in hit probabilities for Level-3
stealth on a size-4 vehicle, we find:
D12: From 71% to 46%, ie by 100-46/71 = (1-46/71)*100 = 35%
Or, conversely, the vehicle just had its chance to survive the shot
increased by (71/46-1)*100 = 54% (ie, the enemy has to fire on average
54% more shots at it to hit it).
and in the same way: D10: 41% (the enemy needs to fire 71% more shots to get a
hit) D8: 48% (93% more shots) D6: 50% (100% more shots) D4: 50% (100% more
shots)
The Superior ECM reduces the hit probabilities of Basic, Enhanced and Superior
GMS guidance by 56%, 49%, and 40% of the chance of hitting a
target without ECM. It is a little better than Level-3 Stealth against
Basic GMS guidance, but very close (as in "too little to show up in playtests"
against Enhanced and Superior GMS guidances. Even its higher
power against Basic guidance compared to the effect of Level-3 Stealth
vs Basic FCSs, is small enough to be very difficult to see even in intensive
playtests.
> A tank can also obtain poor mans stealth. ie. Hide in a
Sure it can. However, the stealthed tank gets very nearly the same
relative benefit from cover or evasive maneuvers - eg., if a Signature
4 tank goes hull down a shot from say a D10 FCS (choose FCS quality and range
to match) has its hit chance reduced from 65% to 39%, ie.
(1-39/65)*100 = 40%; if the tank was Signature 1 instead the enemy hit
probability goes down from 38% to 24% which is (1-24/38)*100 = 37%. The
difference between being 40% harder to hit and being 37% harder to hit rather
small; in both cases the enemy needs to throw on average about
60% more shots at the hull-down tank to get a hit than he would need if
the tank was in the open.
The relative effect of a secondary die depends surprisingly little on what
primary die you use (at least it surprised me to find the two almost
independent!). It depends quite a bit on the *opposing* die, but that should
be factored into the value of the enemy FCS rather than into the defensive
system or tactic providing the secondary die.
> But the only poor mans ecm is an ADS vehicle, a PDS or popping >smoke.
The ADS does seem to be overpriced, yes. That's one of the bits I plan to
revise.
> A PDS is very very expensive since it takes not only points but space
Again I wish to remind you that I am *revising* the design system. The PDS is
BTW somewhat more effective than the corresponding level of ECM, though not
enough so to justify the higher internal capacity cost.
> And smoke only protects from frontal fire.
Smoke, OTOH, is completely free, stops GMSs from being fired through it
completely, and all vehicles have it. 'Course, the DSII smoke rules
don't reflect current use of AFV smoke grenades very well - eg, firing
them in response to ATGM ambushes :-/
> First, combining Stealth and ECM into one system (with 4 or 5 levels,
30? You're taking size-6 vehicles into account as well?
Again you seem to be looking at the *absolute* changes in hit probabilities.
As I wrote above you need to look at the *relative* changes to get any useful
data, and when you do there are four (or five, with Brilliant ECM) distinct
groups (which I called "cases" above). Yes, each group has some small
variations within itself, but again these variations are too small to detect
even in intensive playtesting. I listed these four (five) cases in my recent
reply to David Brewer.
So no, I'm not forgetting size. Indeed, it was my study of how important size
was which got me thinking of combining Stealth and ECM in the first place...
and just as I've been told for other
applications, it turns out that for the cost of Stealth/ECM systems
size isn't very important. It's how you use it which matters <g>
> If on the other hand ECM IS an integral part of the chassis.
This is completely out of the question and has never been considered.
[snip]
[on lo-mob wheeled vs faster]
> Interesting. Given his relatively low mobility, is he able to hold
OK. Sounds like fairly open terrain?
> His main problem is not the shooting nitty-gritty stuff, but the fact
<chuckle> Yes, I can imagine that...
Regards,