Finally caught up on all of the posts I missed, and I thought I'd throw in
some comments and ideas.
First, some enthusiastic compliments:
1) I like the idea of selecting Armor Level for each side of the
vehicle in the design stage in place of the present fixed-relation
system. However, this will require an increase in the capacity of each size of
vehicle (assuming the armor takes up capacity). As a baseline, I'd say a size
1 vehicle should have 10 capacity: 6 sides of level 1 armor plus either an
infantry fireteam or a turreted class 1 weapon.
2) I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however if
combined with buying armor (as above), maybe it should be 10, 20, 40, etc..
This system is especially needed for those that reference existing MBT size
vehicles in the Size 3 range, because other existing vehicles then fall way
outside the sequence were they "should" fall.
E.g. #1: LVTP7/AAVP7 is about the size of a contemporary MBT but
carries 25 troops plus two turreted (light) weapons. E.g. #2: CH-53
carries up to 55 troops. If this is size 8-10, then what size is an
LCAC? The doubling system would take care of these nicely.
3) I like the idea of ammo for missile systems. We use the following:
i) GMS takes up capacity like other weapons, i.e. 2x class fixed, 3x class
turreted.
ii) a GMS comes with a "basic load" equal to half its quality, i.e. a d8 GMS
has 4 missiles, d10 GMS has 5 missiles.
iii) an additional "basic load" can be purchased for capacity = size
+1, e.g. a GMS/1(L) can get another basic load for 2 cap., and a
GMS/2(H) for 3 cap.
Next, some ideas to fix some of the other problems talked about:
4) I agree that a system needs to be developed where the triangle of
capacity-armor-movement all come into consideration during vehicle
design without resorting to points costs. We have been experimenting with
using the following:
i) Treat movement values as die types. Base move values of 15 are changed to
16 (=d8x2)
ii) Movement types that have both a "Fast" and "Slow" option use the "Fast"
value for vehicles size 2 or less, and the "Slow" value for vehicles size 3
and larger.
iii) When designing a vehicle, it is assumed that the movement and capacity
values represent a vehicle of a given size class with maximum armor level. For
each level of armor less than the maximum, the player may either a) increase
movement by 1 die type or b) increase capacity by the vehicle size. E.g. a
size 4 vehicle has level 2 armor and a base movement of 10. It may have a)
increase movement 2 "die types" to
16, b) increase capacity by 2x(+4)= +8, or c) increase movement 1 "die
type" to 12 and also increase capacity by +4.
This is just a variant that we are using. Obviously the exact details would be
different if the system is changed to require capacity to be used to buy armor
levels as well (as in #1 above), but movement rate should also effect capacity
or armor without resorting to using a points value, as not everyone uses the
(optional) points system. This might further increase the needed baseline
capacity o a size 1 vehicle.
5) I agree that the range of tech levels should be expanded. We use the
following: d4 = Inferior or Antiquated systems d6 = Basic, Poor, or
Obsolescent systems d8 = Standard systems d10 = Enhanced systms d12 = Superior
systems
We assign a "Tech level" to a force, then carry that throughout the systems.
In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity a system
takes up tied to both the system's Quality as well as the tech level of the
force it represents. E.g. if Force A has Standard Quality technology and Force
B uses Enhanced Quality technology, then a system which takes up 2 capacity
for Force A (having a d8 QD) should also take up 2 capacity for Force B (but
use a d10). Force B's higher tech base allows them an advantage. This does not
prevent Force A from making a d10 quality system, but then it takes up more
capacity than Force B's system with equivalent capabilities.
6) Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality: i) "Vehicle
speeds are too slow." [for a 15 minute game turn] ii) "If my fire support roll
fails, what is my arty battery doing for 15 minutes?" iii) "Fire rates are too
slow. Modern MBTs could take 50 aimed shots in a 15 minute game turn."
Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption of the 15 min. game turn.
change it to 4-5 minutes and it reduces the problem substantially.
Additionally: change the activation into 2 actions like SG2, allowing a
vehicle to FIRE-FIRE or MOVE-MOVE
7) Weapons. Lots of problems here. i) The DS2 weapons which correspond to
modern weapons are significantly less capable than modern systems in the same
class, particularly the HVC and GMS. E.g. 1991 GW experience showed US and UK
forces having
very high hit rates at 3000-3500m (~80%+). That can't be done in DS2.
ii) Lots of SF weapons have a variety of interpretations depending on the
setting that you are playing in, and DS2 is difficult to tinker (unlike SG2).
iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level horizon on
Earth. Why? Not all battles are fought on a flat plain at sea level. If I am
on a hill, ridge or escarpment, I should be able to shoot at targets 7, 8, or
more km away with a laser. Even on terrain blocking ground level LOS, I should
get a shot at VTOLs that would be beyond the horizon if they were grounded.
Additionally, as a SF game, not all planets will have a 6km horizon. Some
might be 5500m or less, others 7000m or more.
A solution is to have a system were the players design the weapons by
selecting a few values, maybe have some special options for special
abilities (like lasers/other beam types, etc.), instead of having them
pre-set. Eliminating the chit-drawing and altering the to-hit system
slightly allow this to be quite easy. This would also allow players to make as
many or as few weapon categories as they want (eg maybe I want EM and grav
drivers as seperate categories while someone else lumps them together), and
place capabilities as advanced or as limited as they prefer. If anyone is
interested, I can briefly outline the variant that we use.
8) As written, DS2 assumes that all weapons of a given size and class are the
same capabilities. However, by applying tech levels to the force, this can
give wider variety.
E.g. Force A (Standard) has tanks with HVC/4. Force B (Enhanced) has
tanks with HVC/4(En). HVC/4(En) takes up cpacity as a class 4 weapon,
but has abilities 1 class higher (range and penetration as HVC/5).
Finally, Some points where I don't have a specific suggestion, but rather a
general concept:
9) Someone brought up that allowing players to select the values of their
various armor locations in exchange for capacity would result in very thin top
armor. This is true, but only because DS2 is seriously
lacking in top-attack weapons, even compared to modern systems
(mid-1990s on). I believe this is due to a lack of general publicity
for the proliferation of top-attack weapons. Additionally, all of the
examples brought up were of direct-attack type weapons. A significant
number of stand-off TA weapons using explosively forged kinetic
penetrators have entered service in the last 10 years, even for MBT main
cannon.
This concept of stand-off TA weapons can be extended in a SF setting
into a wide range of submunition types. E.g. instead of EFKP, how about a
single shot chemical laser, a single shot plasma launcher
(DFFG), or a single shot grav-driver shotgun firing a spray of long-rod
penetrators? Due to the nature of the weapon, it can be significantly stripped
down from a weapon that needs to survive multiple uses and retain very
devastating characteristics.
A proliferation of TA weapons in the game will inevitably lead to a Darwinian
thickening of top armor (just as it will in the real world).
10) Additionally, several people have asserted that the widespread use of PDS
systems will reduce the effectiveness of artillery and
direct-fire ballistic weapons. The stand-off TA weapon makes such
weapons significantly less effective.
Hypothetical examples: a heavy artillery rocket deploying a payload of
several hundred CEM-type submunitions might be relatively easy for a
PDS to deal with, since it only has to engage those submunitions that it
computes will actually strike its vehicle; on the other hand, the
same HAR deploying 10-20 SFW-type submunitions will be much more of a
threat since the PDS will have to engage every one that comes within attack
range. This can defeat the PDS in several ways: a) saturate the system with
targets so it cannot engage them all before being attacked,
b) stand-off range may be longer than PDS range, c) PDS may not carry
enough ammunition to engage all targets, especially if subject to multiple
rounds in a single attack or multiple attacks.
10) Artillery is understrength in DS2. Specifically in: i) munition and
submunition types and capabilities ii) lack of precision guided munition
types; including those that need target designation, those that make course
corrections to target coordinates, and those that seek targets autonomously.
iii) assumption of vulnerability to counterbattery tracking. A unit firing
smart or brilliant munitions might not even have to stop to fire. iv) low
ammunition capacity: with designated or autonomous munitions, a
single ammo-marker may account for enough shells to make single-target
attacks for the entire game.
v) small area of effect/low fire rate: a single piece using designated
or autonomous munitions or submunitions might be able to affect a much
larger area when rapid-firing than one firing HE or dumb submunitions.
J
[quoted original message omitted]
> J L Hilal wrote:
[...]
> 6) Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
[...]
I can tell you that a number of concerns you brought up, in item 6 and beyond,
are being addressed and worked over by the test list group.
Some potential solutions are being formed. :-)
Mk
> I can tell you that a number of concerns you brought up, in item 6 and
Gawrsh, you talk almost as pretty as my manager...
The_Beast
> On Tuesday 21 September 2004 08:15 am, Doug Evans wrote:
Hey now... no need to be rude.
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Although 50 is, indeed, an exagerated figure, 1 shot per 15 minutes is also
ridiculous. There are many historical examples that show the fire rate of DS2
is pitifully low.
E.g.:
At Villers-Bocage on 13 June, 1944, a Tiger under the command of Michel
Wittman destroyed 12 tanks and 13 other vehicles of the British 7th Armored
Division in just 10 minutes. Along with the rest of his company (4 more
Tigers), they destroyed the rest of A and B Squadrons and Reg. HQ of the 4th
County of London Yeomenry and A Company of the 1st Rifle Brigade.
E.g.:
At dawn on 25 February, 1991, B Co., 4th Tank Batt., 4th Marine Div., was
surprised by a force of 1 tank and 2 MI battalions of the Iraqi 3rd Armored
Division moving across their front. In just over 5 minutes,
the 13 M1A1s KOed 30 T-72s, 4 T-55s, and 50 APCs and unarmored
vehicles.
E.g.:
On 26 Feb., 1991, E Troop, 2/2 Armored Cav. fought two armored and one
mechanized battalions of the Iraqi Tawakalna Republican Guard Div. at
73 Easting. In about 20 minutes, 9 M1A1s and 13 M3s KOed 39 T-72s and
20 other armored vehicles.
<snip>
> So normal movement and shooting is at much lower rates than
Both of the 1991 examples, the US takes moved at a steady 10-20 mph.
> A game system can either simply limit a vehicle's abilities to
You feel that 1 shot per 15 minutes and speeds of 1 kph is "sensible"?
> or allow them, but place
My suggestions would allow a maximum of 6-8 shots per 15-16 minutes if
stationary. That is not unreasonable, and is significantly better than the
present 1 per 15 min., though I would still call it low.
If you want "sensible" = "realistic sustainable", I would go so far as to
suggest allowing number of shots (and targets) per fire action to
equal half the crew QD. e.g. regular (d8) gets 8/2=4 shots per 4-5
minute turn on the move or 8 shots in 4-5 minutes when stationary. But
this is significantly higher than my post originally suggested.
J
> Doug Evans wrote:
<hangs head> Sorry. Too many meetings lately. Picking up on jargonesque speak.
Mk
I thought I'd throw in a couple of comments. Read below.
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:
> Finally caught up on all of the posts I missed, and I thought I'd
I too am in favor of more flexibility for armor ratings and values, but I am
against armor taking up capacity. I don't think I've ever read of a case where
armor took up *space* in a vehicle design. What I've read leads me to believe
that amror is *heavy* and thus impacts speed. It's the weight, having to be
moved by the engine (power plant) that causes the problem.
> 2) I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however
I'm still not sure that I see why the class size comparison is an issue.
Someone earlier (sorry, I've forgotten who) said that the sizes should double
from the previous size. That's fine, if that's your assessment of what "size"
should be. I'm just as happy with it being an arithmetic progression rather
than a multiple.
Much of the issue seems to be driven by trying to address the difference
in sizes in real vehicles. If my M-1 is Class 3, then my M2 Bradley has
to be Class II, 'cause they're smaller, but then they can't carry enough
infantry, or enough weapons to represent the real vehicle, and then how
big is my Hummer? Or my M-60?
If there is not enough differentiation in classes then perhaps there should be
more classes. Making each class bigger in relation to the previous one still
won't readily reflect differences in vehicles which are *close* to the same
size.
> 3) I like the idea of ammo for missile systems. We use the
I don't in most cases. I can see a desire for one or two shot items like
a TOW on a Hummer, but in a sci-fi setting, I have problems with a
missile armed MBT (or support tank or whatever, like the missile tanks in OGRE
or the various missile armed tanks from GZG) not having sufficient loads to
fight through the battle.
I like keeping track of artillery ammo because a sustained barrage takes a
pile of ammo, and that makes sense to me to track it. And this is keeping in
mind that I can still issue harassing fire if I'm out of "loads". Keeping
track of how many missiles my missile tank fired would be annoying. And if
you're going to go that route, why not track IAVRs for
infantry? And shells for HVCs? or for MDCs?
Along with the annoyance factor, I think it opens a wedge for too much
tracking in what is supposed to be an easy to play game with little paperwork.
I would not mind an option for a lower cost launcher that has limited missiles
*for those who think that it fits their genre and design options*, but I don't
want to to lose the current model of the GSM being, in effect, a direct fire
weapon with a different resolution system (targeting system vs ECM instead of
vs signature).
> Next, some ideas to fix some of the other problems talked about:
That's seems horribley arbitrary for a "generic" system which should be able
to model more than the the Tuffleyverse. My OGREs are NOT size 2, but I will
insist that they be "fast". Further, there are plenty of scenarios and genres
where I want fast BIG vehicles. Hammers Slammers hovertanks, the gzg grav
tanks, and others. Forcing them to be slow becaus it fits *your* worldview
makes this a much less flexible system.
> iii) When designing a vehicle, it is assumed that the movement and
to
> 16, b) increase capacity by 2x(+4)= +8, or c) increase movement 1 "die
I still fail to follow how armor values effect capacity points.
Let's take a "fictional real world example". Say that my M113 APCs are armored
at level 2 because they're smallish. I decide that I want to put in another
infantry section. How does reducing armor make that box any bigger?
OTOH, if I wanted to make it more heavily armored, I could easily weld armor
plates all over the surface of it. It would likey drop to about 5
mph max speed, but I could do it. And if I did, I could *still carry a full
squad of infantry*.
> 5) I agree that the range of tech levels should be expanded. We use
Is there anything beyond "cause I wanted to" to enforce that a force is
consistant? Do I get any kind of bonus in numbers or somewhere else for
a force of inferior/antiquated systems? Is there no option for upgrades
in design during a campaign? If I'm running with essentiall WWII vehicles, but
come up with a more modern vehicle design with better targeting systems
(Basic) due to my scavenging from my technologically advanced enemys losses,
can I not field a few "brand spanking new super duper almost as good as
theirs" tanks?:) If so, great, but kind of invalidates the statement above. If
not, I'd sure like to hear some reaosning.
In the forces I field now, I vary the "tech level" of FCS in order to
differentiate between my more modern combat vechiles, or between ones which
have weapons, but are not MBTs or front line units. I sure wouldn't want to
lose that option.
> In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity a
This is a cool idea.
> 6) Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
Yes, but it then changes the scope of the game. It becomes much more tactical
by design than it is now. Any time that you change a scale
(ground scale, time scale, figure scale - how many real vehicles a model
represnts, not the 15mm vs 6mm scale) you are changing what the game
represents. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but if such a thing were
implemented, only go there with a full understanding of what you're doing.
My preference would be to change the mechanics so that the time scale and
ground scale stay the same as they are now, but so that speed/mobility
and combat resolution are a little more in line with at least current
technology, and hopefully with projected future tech.
> Additionally: change the activation into 2 actions like SG2, allowing
If the system is changed to allow for a more rapidly resolved system with
faster movement and more viscious firefights, then the *tactical* SG2
activation system should not be needed.
> 7) Weapons. Lots of problems here.
In combat? I'm only asking because history has also shown that proving ground
ratings and "wargame" ratings tend to be far better than actual combat
ratings.
> ii) Lots of SF weapons have a variety of interpretations depending on
I agree here. And I'd like to see more variety of weapons. Blasters, EMP and
Plasma rounds for artillery, better APERS rounds for most cannons (HVCs,
HKPs), MVCs for lower tech units, more options for infantry support weapons,
both longer and shorter range missile and rocket systems, more ADS options
(missiles, lasers, etc.) and... oh hell, I could go on for a
long time.:)
> iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level
Yup.
> A solution is to have a system were the players design the weapons by
I am somewhat less inclined to make the system completely free form like
this suggests. Some players are simply better at min-maxing values than
others. Keeping the weapons semi-generic is good enough for me, though
again, I would like to see more options. Once a laser is defined, however, I'd
like a laser to be a laser.
> 10) Artillery is understrength in DS2. Specifically in:
Agreed.
> ii) lack of precision guided munition types; including those that need
But in this case, I would argue that the munitions should then have a FCS
value which is applied against the targets ECM capabilities.
> iii) assumption of vulnerability to counterbattery tracking. A unit
The kind of don't now. Artillery units can move then fire or fire then move,
just like tanks. <shrug>
> iv) low ammunition capacity: with designated or autonomous munitions,
I like the artillery loads system.:)
> v) small area of effect/low fire rate: a single piece using designated
This points back to item "i" in this list. With more variation in munitions
types, you can pull this sort of thing off.
> J
J too.:)
> J L Hilal wrote:
[...]
> > There are a lot of factors that stop tanks and other weapons from
Perhaps this is a problem of the game's command-and-control
mechanics. DS2 is still basically an "I go - You go" system where
every unit gets an identical amount of initiative per turn. Whether we say a
turn is 5 or 15 minutes it's still a
"hurry-up-and-wait" handwave that says that every unit does the
same amount of hurrying and the same amount of waiting in each turn: that
everybody effectively moves in slow motion.
Reducing the length of a turn doesn't necessarily make things better. Just
because some platoons historically have acted at an optimum efficiency
shouldn't mean that all units will always operate at optimum efficiency.
A game like "Crossfire" (WW2 infantry) gives a unit with initiative more
initiative if it suceeds in what it does.
Sometimes one unit can "hurry-up-and-hurry-up-and-hurry-up" while
other units just "wait".
> J L Hilal wrote:
[...]
> 2) I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however
I would think a system of doubling "capacity" with each size class would fit
best with a system of doubling the space and capability of each class of
armour and weapons as well.
When Oerjan says that the armour of a typical modern MBT is something like
8:2:1 front:side:rear my brain reads it as
2^3:2^1:2^0 or 2^(size):2^(size-2):2^(size-3)...
> John K Lerchey wrote:
[...]
> I too am in favor of more flexibility for armor ratings and values,
It's
> the weight, having to be moved by the engine (power plant) that causes
The way I see it, if armour impacts mobility (or speed, or
power-to-weight ratio or however one sees it) then adding armour
definately subtracts *something*. To add armour to a design without changing
any stat including speed must come at a cost. If space is the currency we
spend when designing a vehicle, then it subtracts space.
If we don't want the extra armour improvement to downgrade
mobility then we are going to boost up the power-to-weight ratio
by increasing the *size of the engine*... thus adding armour has *taken up
space* that could have been used to carry men or systems. It has reduced our
firepower.
If mobility type also costs space, we could cross off the extra space the
armour costs with the space we remove from mobility type to downgrade from
faster to slower. It has reduced our mobility.
[...]
> If there is not enough differentiation in classes then perhaps there
Ignoring vehicle design, what is the actual *game* difference between two size
classes? They have different signatures and... that's it really. What is a
signature anyway? Genuinely stealthy
aircraft have radar cross-sections orders of magnitude smaller
than non-stealthy craft, not just 3/4 or 2/3.
How important is it that one vehicle is 3/4 the volume of another
regarding targetting by ultramodern fire control? I'm guessing "not much".
Literally shrinking a vehicle to 75% volume suggests
it has 90% of its length and 83% of its cross-section as a target.
That's just peanuts... surely we can group them together as the same target
class? If the rules were to group them together, shouldn't the design system
follow?
[Roger forwarding for Oerjan again]
********
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 2) I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however
Much easier to make the capacity progression linear instead; otherwise
you're likely to make Size/4 vehicles and above *extremely* powerful.
Whether or not the base capacity should be 5xSize, 10xSize or 15xSize depends
both on how armour is treated and on how the mobility type is
handled - ie., if you have to pay capacity points for the engine and
transmission, then of course the vehicle's base capacity would have to be
larger than if you just subsume the propulsion into the chassis.
> E.g. #2: CH-53 carries up to 55 troops. If this is size 8-10, then
An LCAC is about 10' longer than the CH-53 fuselage and some 4-5 *times*
as wide (~40' vs. ~9'; I'm not counting the helo's rotors or stub wings here
though <g>), so if you make the CH-53 Size/8-10 the LCAC would be
somewhere
around Size/50-60 in a linear scale or Size/10-13 in an exponential
scale. (This illustrates why I prefer a linear size scale to an exponential
one,
BTW.)
> 6) Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
So are infantry speeds. DS2 infantry appearently crawl on their bellies even
during road marches.
> ii) "If my fire support roll fails, what is my arty battery doing for
Probably serving some *other* section of the front, eg. the battalion that's
covering your (off-table) flank... then again, it might be blanketted by
enemy EW efforts so it can't get any accurate target coordinates, or even
under attack by enemy partisans.
> iii) "Fire rates are too slow. Modern MBTs could take 50 aimed shots
A bit exaggerated (most modern MBTs don't have as many as 50 main gun rounds
on board), but basically yes.
> Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption of the 15 min. game turn.
Reduces the problem, but doesn't really solve it - eg., 4-minute turns
would allow Fast Tracked vehicles to shoot without penalties while moving at
sustained speeds of 6 mph rather than the current 1.5 mph, but as you wrote
in your reply to KHR today's real-world armoured units can fight at
sustained combat speeds of *20* mph (and occasionally more)... and the speeds
will no doubt increase even further in the future. (Renegade Legion
grav tanks moving at 200+ mph during combat, anyone? <g>)
Unless you do something drastic about the structure of the game turn, you'll
need to cut the game turn to around *1* minute to allow vehicles reasonably
realistic combat movement and fire rates - and even then you'll
seriously underestimate the movement rates of units out of contact with the
enemy
(eg.
rear-area reserves or relocating artillery batteries).
FWIW the potential solution Indy hinted at some days back fits John
Lerchey's description pretty closely - it changes the game mechanics to
allow a "realistic" amount of action to occur during a 15-minute turn,
instead of shortening the turn to fit the amount of action the current game
mechanics allow.
> 7) Weapons. Lots of problems here.
Which is why you pretty much have to assume that the to-hit roll
includes
*spotting* as well as the actual aiming and firing - ie., many of the
times when you roll a "miss" the vehicle crew didn't see its target so it
never actually pulled the trigger.
Baking spotting into the to-hit roll also helps explaining the massive
effects different target Signatures have on the hit probability - in
reality it is only marginally harder for a tank gun with a modern FCS to hit a
jeep as it is for it to hit a tank *once the target has been spotted*, but
thanks to its smaller size the jeep is much easier to hide (and thus much
harder to spot) than the tank is. (cf. one of David Brewer's posts.)
> iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level horizon
If I am on
> a hill, ridge or escarpment, I should be able to shoot at targets 7, 8,
Yep. Unless of course there's some minor terrain feature blocking the
LOS -
and it doesn't take much: minor undulations of the ground, minor copses, a few
scattered houses, hedges... none of which is big enough to show up on the DS2
gaming table, but they nevertheless influence the battle.
> 9) Someone brought up that allowing players to select the values of
You're forgetting how old DS2 is. As you note below the proliferation you're
talking about here (and not just for EFP weapons!) mostly took place in the
last 10 years - ie. *after* DS2 was written and published.
> Additionally, all of the examples brought up were of direct-attack type
> weapons.
No-one mentioned MAK-style artillery, then?
> A significant number of stand-off TA weapons using explosively forged
Virtually all of these EFP-armed TA weapons are either mines or
artillery rounds. DS2's minefield rules are sadly out of date, but the rules
for
"MAK"
artillery are a pretty good representation of today's EFP-armed smart
artillery rounds like SADARM and BONUS.
As for MBT main gun rounds using EFP warheads, I'm only aware of one such
round (ATK's XM943 STAFF) - but AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet.
> 10) Additionally, several people have asserted that the widespread use
IIRC I've only seen one such assertion about *P*DS, and it was quickly
corrected for precisely the reason you describe...
What has been asserted however is that advanced *A*DS systems will be able to
destroy incoming artillery rounds before they can release their submunitions;
at least one such system is already under development. (One
such *ground-based* system, that is; naval point-defence systems have
been able to knock down incoming shells on at least a limited scale for quite
some time already.)
> 10) Artillery is understrength in DS2. Specifically in:
[...]
> iii) assumption of vulnerability to counterbattery tracking. A unit
No, that's actually a pretty safe assumption. Being able to fire on the move
(as opposed to firing on the 30-second or one-minute halt, which today's
best SPGs can do) only makes you *more likely* to avoid the enemy
CBR-guided
smart-munitions counter-battery fire; it certainly doesn't *guarantee*
that you'll avoid them.
> iv) low ammunition capacity: with designated or autonomous munitions, a
For most purposes, "a sustained barrage" from modern artillery consists of
around 3 shells per gun - after that the battery has to relocate if it
wants
to avoid enemy counter-battery fire, and after the first few rounds the
target will have taken cover anyway so any additional shells aren't likely to
increase the damage much. TOT barrages can increase the number of shells that
have an effect before the target can take cover, but TOT is only really
possible at shorter ranges and it does nothing to help you avoid the enemy
counter-battery effort.
IOW, if used for modern combat each DS artillery ammo marker would represent
around 3 shells per gun in the battery. You'd need a fairly large battery to
make a single marker last for "harrassing fire" for an entire game :-/
(I
agree that "harassing fire" should have a non-zero chance to inflict
damage,
though - the DS2 concept of "harassing fire" is very much based on
WW2-through-'Nam artillery practises with HE shells.)
> v) small area of effect/low fire rate: a single piece using designated
Already covered by the DS2's large beaten zones (400 meters across).
*********************************************************************
> KHR wrote:
> There are a lot of factors that stop tanks and other weapons from
No, it isn't *wrong*. It is a bit *exaggerated*, but it is far closer to real
combat mobility and rates of fire than the current DS2 is.
> Some points:
The only one of these which is significant today is limited ammo (today's
120mm-armed MBTs typically only have 40-45 main gun rounds on board).
Barrel heating and loader fatigue are far less of a problem at this relatively
low
rate of fire - 50 rounds in 15 minutes is only about one-quarter of
today's
high-rate tank gun fire.
> - In a high-lethality battlefield, evrybody hides as far as possible.
Typically, >there will be rather less than 50 targets visible.
TYPICALLY, sure - but DS2 doesn't allow you to engage multiple targets
*even when there are multiple targets available*.
> - Moving at full speed, observation is impaired, the driver can not use
Sure - but as Jared wrote, today's real-world *tracked* armoured
formations can fight without any noticable reduction in combat power while
moving at an
average of 10-20 mph. DS2 currently allows "Fast Tracked" vehicles to
move no faster than *3* mph if they want to shoot at all, and suffer
significant combat penalties if they move any faster than *1.5* mph. (For GRAV
and FAST GEV the corresponding values are 3.75 mph and 1.875 mph,
respectively.) Reasonable? Maybe for WW1, but not for SF.
And this part of your argument collapses completely if you look at movement of
reserve and logistics units behind the front line. These units are moving in
secured territory; they don't need to use terrain for cover etc. and
therefore *can* (and often do) move at full speed - which in DS2 means
"up to 15 mph if they're GRAV or FAST GEV, otherwise 10 or 12 mph". In today's
real world rear-area HMWs can road-march at 60 mph, and FTR can
road-march
at 45-50 mph.
******************************************************************
> John K Lerchey wrote:
> I too am in favor of more flexibility for armor ratings and values, but
> case where armor took up *space* in a vehicle design.
In that case you haven't read any good books or articles about armoured
vehicle design. The front armours of modern MBTs are several feet thick, so if
the vehicle's external dimensions are fixed (eg. because of transport or
visibility considerations - in DS the latter are more likely than the
former since transporting the troops to the battle isn't represented in the
game) the only place you can find the volume needed to fit the armour is
inside
the vehicle. Looking at add-on armours for APCs should give you a few
more hints about just how bulky armour is.
> 3) I like the idea of ammo for missile systems. We use the
> TOW on a Hummer,
IIRC TOW-armed Hummers usually have 6 missiles available, but then they
can't fit very much else inside.
> but in a sci-fi setting, I have problems with a missile armed MBT (or
> armed tanks from GZG) not having sufficient loads to fight through the
Those OGRE and GZG tanks which use missiles as their primary (or even only)
weapon all have BIG launchers/racks/magazines - IOW, they devote (at
least) as much of their internal capacity to missiles as the various gun tanks
devote to their big guns, and because they do these missile tanks are very
unlikely to run out of missiles during a battle.
Those vehicles which have a secondary missile launcher latched onto a gun
turret are very much akin to today's real-world vehicles with similar
armaments. For these vehicles the missiles are either last-resort
weapons or opportunity weapons; they devote most of their internal space to
other types
of payload - and because they do, they *do* risk running out of missiles
during a battle.
> I like keeping track of artillery ammo because a sustained barrage
As discussed above, each ammo marker represents roughly 3 rounds per gun in
the battery. That's not a very big pile, but you nevertheless track it.
> And if you're going to go that route, why not track IAVRs for
Because MDC and HVC rounds, and even infantry IAVRs, are considerably smaller
than ATGMs (ie., what DS2 calls "GMSs").
> I still fail to follow how armor values effect capacity points.
Very easy: in spite of what you believe, armour intended to stop anything
more powerful than a non-AP rifle bullet is quite bulky.
> Let's take a "fictional real world example". Say that my M113 APCs are
> armored at level 2 because they're smallish. I decide that I want to
> bigger?
The armour on a basic M113 consists of up to 44mm thick aluminium plate
(reasonably resistant but not completely proof to small arms fire, so
Armour/1 in SG terms or Armour/0-ish in DS terms - the two games don't
mean
the same thing with "Armour/0" and "Armour/1"...), so if you replace all
of
it by normal car-body plate and keep the external dimensions the same as
before you'll increase the width and length of the inside of your box by
approximately 80 mm (ie., +40mm on each side).
How does increasing the width and length of the box by 80mm NOT make it any
bigger?
(That an extra 80mm isn't anywhere near enough to fit another 4-5 men
into the vehicle is entirely your own fault, since you choose a rather lightly
armoured vehicle as the basis for your example.)
> OTOH, if I wanted to make it more heavily armored, I could easily weld
> full squad of infantry*.
And since those extra armour plates are not infinitely thin, they will
increase your vehicle's external dimensions; if they're thick enough to have
an effect that the DS damage system will notice, they'll also increase the
vehicle's external dimensions quite noticably. If you increase a vehicle's
external dimensions, then by definition you increase its size.
> 7) Weapons. Lots of problems here.
The 1991 Gulf War is usually considered to be "combat", even though it was
quite one-sided at times.
********
> David Brewer wrote:
> How important is it that one vehicle is 3/4 the volume of another
Only because you treat *spotting* as automatic - which it very much is
not. You'd be surprised by how much a few inches off the top of a vehicle does
for its chances to avoid being spotted by the enemy.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:53:26 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> Unless you do something drastic about the structure of the game turn,
On the other hand, any military operation includes a significant amount of
time sitting around doing very little. I am always amused by wargames that
have infantry moving at max movement rate for extended periods of time. You
can't imagine how tiring it is to do that. Infantry should have a 'combat
speed' that they can keep up for a short time and a 'patrol speed' that they
can keep up for hours. If you want to properly simulate infantry tactics.
Vehicles don't have the same limits, but anyone who has ever done a field
exercise knows how much time vehicles spend sitting around waiting for
something else to happen, then they move to another point and wait some more,
and another point and wait a bit more. In a
six-turn DSII scenario the action probably totals 6 minutes, but the
total time taken from start to finish is probably even more than an hour and a
half.
> >iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level
If I am on
> >a hill, ridge or escarpment, I should be able to shoot at targets 7,
Again, this is where actually going out an dinking around cross country would
be helpful. Microterrain can hide fairly significant things (as anyone who's
ever come over what looks like a slight rise and gone headlong into a huge
ditch can attest). We play on billards tables because no one wants the
headache of producing something accurate. But even in NTC there are small
rises which are significant enough to block line of sight.
> to 15 mph if they're GRAV or FAST GEV, otherwise 10 or 12 mph". In
Uh, that I have to disagree with. Can road march in theory and can road march
safely are two seperate concepts. Even if you accept that
an M113 is slow tracked, we did NOT race around at 45-50 mph. At
least in US practice, 45mph is what the governor on the M-1 is set at
for the maximum. Realistic road march speeds are closer to 30-40 mph
even for a wheeled convoy.
> visibility considerations - in DS the latter are more likely than the
Unless your scenario design includes these considerations.:)
> IIRC TOW-armed Hummers usually have 6 missiles available, but then
And it is also a non-trivial endeavor to reload them, like the
Bradley. A Bradley would not reload its TOW launchers under fire. It's a bit
of a thing, and requires the vehicle to be stationary for a couple minutes. So
the vehicle may not be out of rounds per se, but still be incapable of firing
because it is dodging around like a manic to try to get to a safe place to
reload.
> At 9:08 AM +0200 9/24/04, John Atkinson wrote:
I think you guys call this "hurry up and wait?"
> Vehicles don't have the same limits, but anyone who has ever done a
I've always thought that the turns represented anything from 5-15
minutes.
Any how, you get this kind of sense of waiting for something and nothing from
a good number of WWII, Vietnam and Korean battle accounts that follow units
closely. Some unit will move up to a start line wait for a bit, move forward,
wait for a bit while their flanking unit moves up to stay even, then engage
something, then move some more then wait for the infantry to catch up. Even
now days, you'll have individual units moved and then set in a place for a
while to keep eyes on a terrain feature or hold a particular flank. One big
thing that the small tables really don't give a sense of is threats from your
flanks. Very rarely does one have to worry about what your flanks are resting
on and what will appear on them to screw your day up. In reality, there are
friendly units there or if Murphy has reared his ugly head, there aren't units
there.
Of course there are other instances where you have bloody fast movement.
Convoy escorts or some of the armor vs insurgent type engagements in ARVN. Or
the FRT type forces that the Cav Troops worked at zipping around trying to
pull someone else's bacon from the fire. The same could be said about WWII
route Recce forces (armored cars). They'd zip down a road so fast that even an
element sitting waiting (88) was surprised and didn't have a chance to get
into action. Often times the 88 or Pak would be ready and the first car would
eat a round through the front. Pricy way to find Germans, but it's cheaper
than a Cromwell.
Of course then there is also that bloody fast movement that 3rd ID, the USMC
units and some other Army, Guard and reserve units made on Bagdad. Outstanding
work and a pretty far distance to move in such a short time. Gott, Patton,
Guderian and of course Hobart would have been pleased as punch to have been
able to watch that deep striking thrust in action either in person or on the
maps, charts, and screens of the command posts.
> Again, this is where actually going out an dinking around cross
And you're not kidding, at Camp Gruber there were some big flat fields with
tall grass that when you walked along, you'd suddenly find a great bloody deep
ditch that was only visible at about 10 feet away. A vehicle moving at 25mph
would have been nose into the ditch before the driver could stop. It was big
enough to swallow one of our carriers or a halftrack and in a few spots a good
bit of a Sherman. These folds will tend to limit movement to a walking pace in
some places if visibility of the vehicle crews is limited. Infantry also had a
similar kind of issue. There are similar cuts on the post at Ft Gilliem. Given
how I've seen such cuts in fields in various parts of souther Georgia too,
It's a thing that should be somehow represented as well. Perhaps an ability to
go IP in armor (or softskins and of course dismounts) in DS3?
I'm glad I wasn't driving a carrier through that grass when we found it. I'd
have had a broken nose and kit and all sorts of crap raining down from the
back compartment.
> > to 15 mph if they're GRAV or FAST GEV, otherwise 10 or 12 mph". In
Its also going to depend on the instance. My buddy Alex in Aussie would race
their M113 fitters track around between elements in their Brigade trying to
respond to repair issues as they cropped up. Sit at a repair spot for an hour
fixing a problem, load up, race to the forward
area to the next downed vehicle and un-arse to
fix it. Certainly not the rule, but liaison vehicles, spotters, commanders and
other units would move like this.
[Forwarded by Roger again]
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Unless you do something drastic about the structure of the game turn,
> seriously underestimate the movement rates of units out of contact
> of time sitting around doing very little. I am always amused by
> time and a 'patrol speed' that they can keep up for hours. If you want
> to properly simulate infantry tactics.
AFAIK the amount of time most infantry soldiers can keep up "combat speed" is
on the order of 1 DS2 turn (15 minutes) or less, so we only really need
"patrol speed" for sustained movements - short-term bursts of faster
"combat" movement are either averaged out by halts during the same game turn
or covered by the extra moves allowed in Close Assaults. However, DS2's
current maximum infantry movement rates (using Travel Mode movement along
roads) are rather less even than real-world *patrol* speed!
> Vehicles don't have the same limits, but anyone who has ever done a
This is a limitation in the *C4I* systems use however, not in the vehicles'
actual movement capabilities - and it is also precisely what the current
"military revolution" is intended to fix: reduce the time spent "sitting
around" by improving the units' situational awareness. To allow DS to be
generic, it should ideally model these C4I limitations via the
command&control rules - *not* via the movement rules.
> iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level
> copses, a few scattered houses, hedges... none of which is big enough
> would be helpful. Microterrain can hide fairly significant things
Bingo. That's exactly what I'm talking above... note that "fairly significant
things" can include pretty much anything, at least up to tank
platoons :-/
(FWIW I'd count Ryan's "big ditch hidden in field of tall grass" as DS
"Cultivated" terrain rather than "Open", thus automatically limiting the speed
at which vehicles could cross it.)
> to 15 mph if they're GRAV or FAST GEV, otherwise 10 or 12 mph". In
Good point, but which of these two marching rates do you use when you're
rushing reserves to block a threatening break-through - the safe one, or
the maximum one? Same for artillery trying to get out of the beaten zone of
incoming counter-battery fire?
> Even if you accept that an M113 is slow tracked, we did NOT race around
As you said, an M113 isn't exactly "Fast Tracked" :-/ And as the earlier
replies have shown, there are quite a few cases where vehicles *do* rush
around at max speed.
> At least in US practice, 45mph is what the governor on the M-1 is set
I know. Some of the Eastern and Euro tanks can go a bit faster however, thus
the "45-50" mph figure.
> Realistic road march speeds are closer to 30-40 mph
Please tell my friendly local armoured regiment that... I've been overtaken by
their convoys quite a few times over the past years, in spite of driving
at 60+ mph myself :-/
> visibility considerations - in DS the latter are more likely than the
Sure, but you pretty much have to write the rules for it yourself - DS2
doesn't have any rules for getting your troops to the battlefield. In fact I
don't know *any* DS2 player - including myself, or even you (John A.) -
who takes transportability into account when designing DS2 vehicles... yet it
has had a massive impact on the design of today's military vehicles. (Just
look at all the MBTs designed to fit through standard-width railway
tunnels, or all the lighter vehicles where the width and height were limited
by the
need to fit inside a C-130 :-/ )
> IIRC TOW-armed Hummers usually have 6 missiles available, but then
Yep. (That's another advantage of gun-missile launchers over bolted-on
ones
- the gun-launchers are much easier to reload under armour <g>) 'Course,
if
the unit is in a turret-down combat position it won't take it very long
to
find that safe spot :-/
Later,
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:45:41 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> AFAIK the amount of time most infantry soldiers can keep up "combat
Well, yes. Those points are both true.
> This is a limitation in the *C4I* systems use however, not in the
OK--although that would be a fairly complex operation IMHO to do so
other than in the most simplistic and arbitrary fashion.
> >Uh, that I have to disagree with. Can road march in theory and can
True--but then your formations get sloppy. Something else to model
with the C4I system.
> Sure, but you pretty much have to write the rules for it yourself -
- who
> takes transportability into account when designing DS2 vehicles... yet
(Just
> look at all the MBTs designed to fit through standard-width railway
True. That's because the means of delivery to the battlefield are not defined
enough to know what their limits are. I mean, are shuttles large enough to fit
a size 4 tanks rare or common?
> Yep. (That's another advantage of gun-missile launchers over bolted-on
'Course, if
> the unit is in a turret-down combat position it won't take it very
If you are willing to accept the tradeoff in missle diameter.