DS2 --> SG2 harmonization

> Brian Bell wrote:

> I understand that this is not desireable in SG2 for purposes of game

IIRC, vehicles can enter and leave the SG2 table in one move. This is like the
movement in DS2.

> I could see allowing units in DS2 to do double movement if they forego

In DSII, IIRC, Mecha or walkers have a "Run" move that allows double distance
but no firing.

> Brian Bell wrote:

I think a lot of the concepts of "Crossfire" could be very applicable here, as
it has a similar mechanism. In Crossfire, if the enemy doesn't fire at your
soldiers, you can move a squad of figures by any amount of distance in a
straight line. Note that players advise having lots of terrain!

I did not mean for my previous comments to be disparaging.

I think that there does need to be some harmonization of DS2 and SG2.

Systems from each need to be available in the other (PDS, GMS/P, etc.)
DS2 FCS needs to be much more accurate in SG2.

I began to take a stab at this a little earlier, and stopped, because I could
not find a way to bring the results of combat closer together without damaging
one or the other game
    - Slowing one of the games down too far
    - Changing the balance of power (Infantry vs Vehicles)
    - Changing the nature of one of the games (Making DS2 fully FMA)

Part of the problem is a differing design philosophy between the two
games. DS2 emphasizes equipment/technology and SG2 emphisizes
Human experience and skill.

In SG2 range bands (small arms) is based on the soldier's quality as the
difference in range between the various weapons falls below the granularity of
SG2. Although one could argue that different small arms' effective range could
differ by more than 10m, opening the door for the equipment to effect the
range as well as the soldier quality.

In DS2 range bands are based on the equipment used. This could be explained
away using PSB about automated FCS and weapons (relegating the crew of a
vehicle to backseat driver). Crew quality is such a small factor that it falls
below the granularity of DS2.

Some harmonization should be done. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS. AFVs are too
weak in SG2. Infantry need to be more flexible in DS2.

And we need to keep in mind that the average SG2 table (30x96") would fit in a
6x10" strip on a DS2 table. It would be interesting to have a game of DS2
where any time an infantry group is with 10" of opposing forces, those forces
are "mapped" to a SG2 game. I would think that AFVs would tend to keep out of
that range, as SG2 is deadly to AFVs, and infantry would attempt to close
within those ranges. Somehow this seems right.