Okay, none of what i am about to say is meant as insults or jibes at anyone.
But! Everyone can surely remember Hi-Fi's that had record players on
them, failing that think early walkmans. As the technology got better they got
smaller.
Now the same is true with guns. Early guns used to fire about 1 maybe 2 times
If that was true now, Texas would be a state of mexico, and drive by shootings
would generally only hit one person. They also used to way so much that a
stand was needed just to be able to aim. Now GI. Bubba can fire off 20 odd
rounds without requiring him to let go of his bud light.
The same is true with DS2. Lo-tech tanks are generally size 3/4 since
they need
the armour. High-tech is generally size 2/3 since they are now more
agile and hence harder to hit. And faster so that their short ranged "hell
aint got nothing on this" gun can be placed right up to a clunking tin can.
Guns are also smaller. a MDC that does equvalent damage to a HVC is smaller.
And the DFFG that does the same as the MDC is smaller still.
Tanks started as a way of giving an infantry man the ability of carrying a
great big gun without slowing his movement down to almost stationary. DS2 has
guys that walk around in a suit of armour that allows him to move at a speed
50% of that of a tank, all the while carrying a weapon that can really ruin
that tanks day. And he gets all these extras while being a size that means
most tankers can't even see or
engage him at the range he can see/engage.
I guess what i'm trying to say is, as far as high tech goes, bigger equals
TARGET.
And that in my experience its lo-tech who need the boost, not high tech.
High tech hit more often, have much higher damage and have a much better
defence. Sure their points are higher, so what. In the games i play, the unit
my opponents fear
the most is my infantry VTOL's (boxy GZG things) Armed with twin DFFG/1
they can take out a size 4 tank on average and they have nasty little people
dropping
down and putting grenades/bullets into whatever they can find. MY most
memorable game moment is watching a Kra'Vak MBT run 30 inches away from a VTOL
that had just wasted the rest of his unit.
I'll leave you with this thought. 5.56mm is standard rather than 7.62. It has
a shorter range and slightly less stopping power. Why was it adopted. Because
it does the job.
Never use a Size 5 Tank when a size 3 will do.
> From: Graeme Bradbury <graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com>
Now GI. Bubba can fire off 20 odd rounds
> without requiring him to let go of his bud light.
These seem like self-contradictory statements...
> The same is true with DS2. Lo-tech tanks are generally size 3/4 since
This seems more a reflection of your own personal taste in weapopnry than an
accurate evaluation of tech levels. There's something to be s aid for class 4
and 5 weapons of ANY type, which require larger vehicle platforms. As for
the more agile/harder to hit, this is true, when you're referring to
GEV/Grav. But in the large scope, any power who relies solely on these,
unless they have a hell of a budget, are going to find themselves seriously
outnumbered. There's merit in tempering your "High-tech" force with
other mobility types, depending on the job they're supposed to do.
> Guns are also smaller. a MDC that does equvalent damage to a HVC is
True, to a point, but... Yes, an MDC 3 will do almost as much damage,
relatively speaking, as a HVC 5, at medium range for both (not quite, but
almost). And have a better range. And be cheaper. However, the DFFG is a
different story. The DFFG 1 will do more damage than either the HVC 5 or MDC
3, but it's range will be pitiful. You will HAVE to rely on fast attack to get
close enough to be effective, which means A: you're also presenting yourself
as an easier target and B: You're spending more on fewer vehicles,
exacerbating the number factor.
> Tanks started as a way of giving an infantry man the ability of
That's a bit incomplete. Protection from fire was as instrumental in prompting
development of the tank as mobility was.
DS2 has guys that
> walk around in a suit of armour that allows him to move at a speed 50%
> day. And he
A weapon which is also vulnerable to several forms of defense (ECM, PDS,
ADS, Reactive Armor). Also, the infantryman carrying this around is
sacrificing some of his effectiveness against other infantrymen, who are
actually quite good at killing him. Again, we go back to the fact that high
tech forces had better rely HEAVILY on combined arms.
> I guess what i'm trying to say is, as far as high tech goes, bigger
That's assuming A: Bigger without stealth and B: Bigger is stupid enough to
let smaller get close. See below.
> And that in my experience its lo-tech who need the boost, not high
> Sure
> they
> dropping
Somebody wasn't using his ADS right.
> I'll leave you with this thought. 5.56mm is standard rather than 7.62.
It
> has a shorter
5.56 is standard f or infantry grunts and their SAWs and AR's. But not for
heavy support MG's, or for snipers. A size 4 or 5 tank has one advantage
over 3's: They can carry class 5 weapons, especially the MDC 5, which
delivers more pure hurt than any other weapon except the DFFG, at a range
rivaled only by the HEL.