I've introduced the Dirtside Accelerator
[http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199903/msg00351.html] at my local
club.
Regarding the accelerator itself, we find that it does deliver a considerable
increase in speed even before all those irritating repair rolls and "what
about that damaged tank?" cases are taken into account. Against that, I'm
having difficulty losing my "weapon X beats armour x" & "armour X is proof
against weapon x" wargamer's mentality, where X > x.
Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a flatter distribution
than drawing N chits against a fixed target total, when N > 2? If so then this
would account for my reservations, but it would lead us to replacing the
unloved chit litter on the table with bucketloads of dice. I gather that there
is already a rules system that does that.
As published, the accelerator doesn't cater for infantry other than to publish
a die for IVARs. Now it might be that rules from SG2 could be dropped in to
cover this discrepancy, but not owning a copy I offer the following
alternatives: (zero testing as always)
Direct Translation Of Existing Rules (DS2 pages 33-36)
====================================
Ranges and limitations remain as per existing rules; the following purely
replaces the chit draws.
Militia / Line Infantry roll 1 D6
APFC / HEL / RFAC / HVC / MDC roll 1 D6
APSW / Powered / DFFG / SLAM-3 roll 1 D8
SLAM-4 roll 1 D10
SLAM-5 roll 1 D12
target Militia roll 1 D4 target Line Infantry roll 1 D6 target Powered Armour
roll 1 D8
target +1 die type if in soft cover
target +2 die types if urban or dug in
Statistically a bit rough-and-ready, but spot checks suggest that
these are not far from the current chances.
Alternative Infantry Rules
==========================
This is more of a personal interpretation of the DS arsenal; to do this
properly I'd need to rewrite bits of pg 6, 8 and 9, and
then re-examine the ranges and other governing rules specified
later in the book.
Militia roll 2 D4 Line Infantry, APFC roll 4 D4
RFAC-1, HVC, most Powered Armour roll 2 D6
APSW, SLAM-3 roll 3 D6
MDC (cannister), SLAM-4 roll 4 D6
SLAM-5, Powered Armour (AP) roll 5 D6
RFAC-2 roll 1 D8
DFFG roll 4 D8/D6
MDC (flechette) roll 2 D10 HEL roll 1 D12
target Militia roll 1 D4 target Line Infantry roll 1 D6 target Powered Armour
roll 2 D6 (not D6x2)
firer -1 die if target in any cover
target +1 die type if urban or dug in
A hit is scored per single weapon die that exceeds the total thrown by the
target, thus a weapon may eliminate multiple adjacent infantry stands.
This makes some attempt to separate the chance of hitting and the chance of
penetrating the personal armour of the target; if some of the chances I
propose seem a bit strange it's
because I've assumed that anything larger than RFAC-2 is
mainly effective through blast or equivalent effect rather than a direct hit.
Again, if I'm treading on ground already covered by SG2 then I'll quite
happily entertain suggestions to buy a copy.
Both of these proposals beg the question of artillery.
The only problem with the accelerator is it gives class 1 weapons of certain
types as much lethality as class 5 weapons of other types. I proposed a system
to the test list a while back, I'm not sure if it's OK to present it to the
main list yet. If so, I believe OO has the details.
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've introduced the Dirtside Accelerator
[http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199903/msg00351.html]
> at my local
Brian,
If it is ok to publish your system, I'd love to see it. My biggest gripe about
DSII, especially for con games, is that it's a slow system and resolution is
hard to achieve, even with a well laid out scenario.
If you need to keep 2-6 players engaged and have enough forces them to
not lose everything in one bad exchange (though I'm not completely against
doing just that), you need to have a decent number of units, which makes
resolution tough because of the combination of chit pulling and slow movement
speeds.
Thanks,
J
--On Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:23 PM -0700 Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The only problem with the accelerator is it gives
> CS Renegade wrote:
> I've introduced the Dirtside Accelerator
That was Jon's first draft. It has undergone a few rounds of development
since, eg. this one:
<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200110/msg00036.html>
IIRC this is the latest iteration that was made public; it tweaks the Impact
die types a bit to get a better fit with the chit results
(especially for the DFFGs - but note that making the DFFG Impact
D12x2xSize still falls a bit short of their lethality with the chits!), adds
the "special damage" types back in (since quite a few people wanted to retain
them), and handles artillery and infantry explicitly. More recent versions
have changed the "special damage" mechanics.
> Regarding the accelerator itself, we find that it does deliver a
As long as you can do multiplications quickly, yes. If some of your players
are mathematically challenged though it can get rather slow :-(
> Against that, I'm having difficulty losing my "weapon X beats armour
x.
Hm? The *accellerator* allows armour X to be proof against weapon x and vice
versa (for large enough values of X and small enough values of x); the *chits*
don't (thanks to those "0" and "BOOM" chits). Why do you have to
lose this particular mentality when you change *from* the chits *to* the
accellerator...?
> Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a flatter
Yes. This is why most "simple" DS-FMA systems (the ones that try to map
weapon sizes/armour ratings directly to particular unmodified die types)
tend to make all weapons very similar to each other, and why the Accellerator
concept *doesn't* use just "single opposed dice" but "single
opposed dice multiplied by the armour rating or weapon size" - the
multiplication gets you away from those narrow distributions.
> As published, the accelerator doesn't cater for infantry
The original draft didn't, but see above :-/
> Direct Translation Of Existing Rules (DS2 pages 33-36)
Spot checks can be quite misleading if you happen to pick the best spots,
though!
Now it's number-crunching time <G>
Once you've straightened out the following tables which will undoubtedly be
mangled by the email programs, here are the kill probabilities in% for fire
against infantry targets using the chits, your above "direct translation",
your below "alternative infantry fire", and my
above-mentioned update of Jon's DS Accelerator:
Chits:
Values are for the chit validities All/R&Y/R/Y (remember that infantry
fire during Close Assaults shifts the validities one step upwards):
Weapon:\Target: Militia Line PA
Militia/Line/APFC 53/36/22/10 28/16/07/02 11/06/03/01
PA/APSW 79/58/37/16 60/37/18/05 38/21/09/02
HEL etc.: 10 2 1 DFFG: 37 18 9
SLAM/3: 16 5 2
SLAM/4: 22 9 4
SLAM/5: 29 13 7
Note that DS2's heavy weapons ignore any cover the infantry is hiding in!
Can't say that I agree with that (at all) - a considerable part of the
protection given by cover is that it makes the infantry harder to target
properly, and it doesn't matter how hard-hitting your weapon is if you
aim
it off target - but it is something to keep in mind when you do a direct
translation of the rules.
Above "direct translation" system: I couldn't see anything about increasing
firepower in Close Assaults, so
put a "-" in that entry rather than assuming some random die shift. The
other three values are for targets in the Open/ targets in Soft Cover/
dug-in targets:
Weapon:\Target: Militia Line PA
Militia/Line/APFC -/58/42/31 -/42/31/25 -/31/25/21
PA/APSW -/69/56/44 -/56/44/35 -/44/35/29
HEL etc.: -/58/42/31 -/42/31/25 -/31/25/21
DFFG: -/69/56/44 -/56/44/35 -/44/35/29
SLAM/3: -/69/56/44 -/56/44/35 -/44/35/29
SLAM/4: -/75/65/55 -/65/55/45 -/55/45/38
SLAM/5: -/79/71/63 -/71/63/54 -/63/54/46
You seem to allow cover to protect infantry against heavy weapons (which is
good), but even with maximum cover the heavy weapons fire is FAR more lethal
in this system than it is when using the chits. Infantry fire also gets a fair
bit more lethal, particularly for units in cover.
Below "alternative infantry" system: Again there's no equivalent to "All"
(ie., no mechanic making Close Assault
fire more lethal) so the first entry is a "-"; the other three values
reprensent the die combinations given below (for targets in the Open)/
-1
firer's die for targets in Soft Cover/ -1 firer's die AND +1 target's
die
type for dug-in targets:
Weapon\Target: Militia Line PA
Militia -/75/38/25 -/50/25/19 -/6/3/2
Line/APFC -/150/113/75 -/100/75/57 -/37/28/16
RFAC/1 etc.: -/116/58/42 -/84/42/31 -/19/9/5
HEL: -/79/-/- -/71/-/-
-/42/-/-
DFFG (D6): -/232/174/126 -/168/126/93 -/37/28/16
DFFG (D8): -/276/207/168 -/224/18/132 -/78/58/33
SLAM/3 etc.: -/174/116/84 -/126/84/62 -/28/19/10
SLAM/4 etc.: -/232/174/126 -/168/126/93 -/37/28/16
SLAM/5 etc.: -/276/207/168 -/224/168/162 -/78/58/33
MDC (flech.): -/150/75/65 -/130/65/55 -/62/31/19
Note that since each shot can potentially kill multiple targets, these values
are the average numbers of elements killed per shot *provided that there's at
least one target available per die thrown*, not the probability of killing one
specific target element. This is why several of the values are larger than
100%, representing weapons which will normally score more than one hit.
This system gives the best approximation of the chit results for Militia
firing at PA I've seen so far for any dice-based DS damage system, but
unfortunately it makes all the *other* combinations of weapon and infantry
target anything from quite a bit more lethal to horrendously more lethal
than the chits (...OK, with the exception of HELs and RFAC/2s firing at
infantry in cover, since they end up with zero dice if the target has any
cover at all!).
***
Updated Accellerator version: Here the values map directly to their chit
equivalents:
Weapon\Target: Militia Line PA
Militia/Line/APFC 46/38/21/13 31/25/13/06 13/10/5/3
PA/APSW 63/55/31/19 53/44/25/16 28/33/19/6
HEL etc.: 13 6 3 DFFG: 31 25 13
SLAM/3: 19 16 6
SLAM/4: 34 19 13
SLAM/5: 44 31 16
Generally a bit more lethal than the chits for PA and the "Yellow" validity,
and somewhat less lethal than the chits for the "All" validity;
the SLAM/4 and SLAM/5 in particular are overpowered relative to their
performance with the chits. (OTOH they're not nearly as *much* overpowered
as in some of the other DS dice systems :-/ )
***
> Alternative Infantry Rules
I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "cannister" and "flechette"
here - today at least flechettes are usually used just in cannister
("beehive") rounds.
> target Militia roll 1 D4
This makes RFAC/2 and HEL completely ineffective if the target is in any
kind of cover (since they only have 1 die to start with).
> target +1 die type if urban or dug in
As you can see from the tables above above, this makes most
anti-infantry
fire *extremely* deadly (with some exceptions, eg. Militia firing at
PA).
> if some of the chances I propose seem a bit strange it's because I've
...whereas RFAC/1 is effective mainly through rate of fire, and the
RFAC/2
isn't effective at all if the target is in any kind of cover?
FWIW today's "HVCs" (large-caliber tank guns) firing at infantry
typically
use fragmenting HE grenades or canister/beehive rounds, so the main
damage mechanism against infantry is shrapnel rather than blast.
Regards,
> Brian B wrote:
Just fyi, OO will be unavailable and incommunicado starting next week for a
month or more due to some major renovations of the apartment block he lives
in. He said he'll be able to read some stuff from work, but private email will
be out and posting probably not possible.
Mk
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> The only problem with the accelerator is it gives class 1 weapons of
Er, no it doesn't! :-) (OK, with the possible exception of a DFFG/1 at
point-blank range compared to a HEL/5 firing at Ablative Armour, but
that particular pairing is pretty similar in the chit system too...) I think
that you're confusing the Accelerator with Brian Bell's DS-FMA system
here; Bell's (*) system uses separate die types to represent weapon Size and
chit validity so can get exactly the same die combinations for weapons of
different die sizes and validities.
(*) Apologies for using the surname, but when discussing one Brian B. with
another Brian B. that's the only chance to avoid confusion... :-/
> I proposed a system to the test list a while back, I'm not sure if it's
It should be OK to post here since it didn't originate with Jon T., so here
goes (with the usual caveat about mangled tables):
DS-Bilderback:
When a weapon scores a hit, an opposed die roll is made between the weapon's
Impact di(c)e and the target's Armour di(c)e. How many dice are
used and how they are interpreted depends on the weapon's Validity, which
is given on a "X/Y" format. "X" gives the number and interpretation of
the Impact dice, while "Y" refers to the Armour. "X" and "Y" can each have the
following values:
H: Roll two dice of the same size. Only the HIGHEST roll is used to determine
if the target is completely destroyed; but both are used to determine damage
less than compete destruction.
1: Roll 1 die only; the roll is used to determine both damage and destruction.
L: Roll two dice of the same size. Only the LOWEST roll is used to determine
if the target is completely destroyed; but both are used to determine damage
less than compete destruction.
The weapon's Size Class determines the size of the Impact dice, while the
target's Armour Rating determines the size of the Armour dice:
Weapon Size: Armour Rating: Die Type: 1 1 D4 2 2 D6 3 3 D8 4 4 D10 5 5 D12
If either rating (Impact or Armour) is larger than 5, the OPPOSITE rating is
shifted DOWN one step for each increment above 5. (If both ratings are larger
than 5, they first cancel one level at a time until the smaller rating reaches
5 and then shifts it downwards until the other rating reaches 5.) No rating
may be shifted to less than 1, however.
Results: If the Impact dice's "complete destruction" score is LARGER THAN the
Armour dice's "complete desctruction" score, the target is DESTROYED.
If a vehicle target is not destroyed but ANY of the Impact die rolls is EQUAL
to ANY of the Armour die rolls, the target is DAMAGED. Roll 1D8 to
determine the type of damage it suffers:
1-3: Mobility hit
4-5: Systems Down: Target
6-8: Damage (lose half movement, shift all fire 1 RB further away)
(In a further developed iteration of these rules, this damage table could
be made dependent on the target's Mobility Type - eg. Hi-Mob Wheeled
vehicles are less likely to take a MOB hit and more likely to take a DAM
hit than Tracks are, since military wheeled vehicles are very often able to
keep moving even if one or more wheels are destroyed whereas a broken track
will immobilize a track-layer, while a Grav vehicle with very
well-protected grav plates could be more likely to take a SD:T result
instead of movement - and so on. For now however I'm content to inflict
the same distribution of damage results on all vehicles.)
These Die Validities don't correspond directly to the old Chit Validities;
instead the weapons get the following validities:
Heavy weapon Impact die types: Weapon Impact depends on the weapon used as
well as the range and target
(just like the chit validities do):
Range: Weapon Close Med. Long Vs. Infantry: HEL
- vs ablative L/1 L/1 L/1 not applicable
- vs other L/L L/L L/L D6, L/H validity
HVC L/L L/1 L/H D6, L/H validity
RFAC L/L L/1 L/H D6, L/H validity
MDC, HKP 1/L 1/1 L/1 D6, L/H validity (1)
DFFG H/L H/1 H/H D8, 1/H validity
HEAT (2)
- vs RA L/L L/L L/L not applicable
- vs APFC (3) L/1 L/1 L/1 not applicable
- vs other H/1 H/1 H/1 Size die, L/H validity (4)
(1) HKP cannot damage infantry (2) Includes GMS, IAVR, SLAM and (if used) LVC.
Of course these types may use other types of warheads instead, but they all
use the same types and
their equivalents today use HEAT :-7 GMS/H = size 5, GMS/L and IAVR =
size 3, SLAM and LVC = same size as the weapon. (3) IAVRs only; they're
considered to be Size 2 weapons. GMS, LVC and SLAM are currently unaffected by
APFC. (4) SLAM and LVC only. IAVR and GMS are unable to harm infantry... not
that
they should be, mind! (If your in-game supply of GMSs is limited, you're
not all that likely to shoot them at infantry anyway...)
Infantry fire validities: Target is in... Firefight: Close Assault:
Open H/H H/1
Soft Cover 1/H H/H
Dug-In L/H 1/H
Infantry "weapon size" dice: Line, Militia, APFC D6 PA, APSW, Assault D8
Infantry "armour" dice: Militia D6 Line D8
PA, soft-skins D10
Artillery validities: Target:
Ammo type: Vhcl: Vhcl, dug-in: Inf: Inf, dug-in:
HEF 1/L no effect H/H 1/H
MAK 1/1 L/1 L/H no effect
Artillery wpn sizes: Target: Artillery type: Vhcl: Inf: Light 1 2 Medium 2 3
Heavy 3 4
***
This system gets quite close to the chit results - so far the only
DS-FMA
system I've seen that beats it is the updated DS Accelerator I mentioned in
the other post today, and this one is considerably more elegant mechanically
(no multiplications!).
The only real objection I have against this system is that it is a bit
cumbersome to use if either or both sides have armour or weapon size
ratings outside the normal DS2 "1 - 5" range - while this is no problem
for DS2, it could hinder some nifty features I'd like to work into DS3
eventually... but that's a later problem.
Later,
> Indy wrote:
> Just fyi, OO will be unavailable and incommunicado starting next week
> lives in.
Yep. That's why I made sure to send the comments about the DS-FMA
systems
*now*, before I go off-line - but I most likely won't be able to answer
questions about them until mid-October.
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> CS Renegade wrote:
> I've introduced the Dirtside Accelerator
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
> That was Jon's first draft. It has undergone a few rounds of
> <http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200110/msg00036.html>
Thanks for the update, Oerjan. Everyone please disregard my original posting;
I now have to read the latest version...
Why is the proposed HEAT class restricted to missiles? Given the relative
figures surely HVC should fire HEAT rounds at long range?
Reading through the following posts made to the above article, I'd solve the
concerns over low dice having a disproportionate chance of scoring special
damage by staying true to the concept behind the accelerator and dropping the
Special Damage rule completely. Keeping these cases off the table does speed
the game up, and if there is demand to keep Special Damage in the ruleset then
I'd favour putting a big "Optional Rules" label on them.
> [on the multiplied die concept] I'm having difficulty losing my
> Hm? The *accelerator* allows armour X to be proof against weapon x and
> vice versa (for large enough values of X and small enough values of
I think our problems centred around large-die low-calibre weapons
against strong armour that had the misfortune to roll low. It just didn't seem
right somehow, so I ran some test cases and discovered that the chances
worrying me were fairly low - for example 1xD10 vs 3xD8 has a 15% chance
of success whereas 2xD10 vs 4xD8 has a 25% chance of success, but would be
expected to be more lethal anyway. Under the chit system the worst a
single chit could do would be to damage an armour/3 target, but the
chance of two chits knocking out armour/3 rises to 28%. I realise I'm
being blind to the possibility of a special chit here, which may go some way
to explaining my original reaction.
> Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a flatter
> Yes. This is why most "simple" DS-FMA systems (the ones that try to
<boggle> that wouldn't have enough range to handle DS properly...
> and why the Accelerator concept *doesn't* use just "single opposed
But the distributions are still flat - I'm looking at all those nice
curves on my diagrams of the chit draw system. We seem to have little option
but to <shudder> roll lots of dice.
> ... here are the kill probabilities in % for fire against infantry
And it's quite possible that flipping back through the rules to check infantry
fire validity, I read the close assault validities by mistake.
> Weapon:\Target: Militia Line PA
There appears to be something I'm not aware of regards chit validity when
shooting at infantry - these aren't the figures I would expect at all.
For example SLAM vs infantry (I thought I'd discovered what SLAM was good for)
DS2, pg 36, col 1, final paragraph extending over next column,
paraphrased as "draws chits equal to class, valid as per infantry fire-
fight". Has there been a correction published?
> "direct translation" system:
> I couldn't see anything about increasing firepower in Close Assaults
I must make a confession regards Close Assaults. I have basically ignored this
area of the rules because in the all the games of DS2 I've played, they never
happen! Although I frequently arrange for both sides to field infantry, they
generally stay in the transports and are never effective
unless they can get to a worthwhile objective (such as a built-up area)
before the enemy appear. APCs are seen as big, fat, undergunned targets.
> You seem to allow cover to protect infantry against heavy weapons
Again, I was under the impression that the differing chit validities for
infantry in cover _did_ apply to all weapons. I'm now getting worried;
my edition of DS2 is copyright 1993 with an ISBN of 0-9521936-0-4; am I
working from an old copy?
> Below "alternative infantry" system:
Regards my "alternative" figures, I nearly didn't post them as they were
completely untried and and did represent a departure from the technology laid
out by the quoted pages; for example, all MDCs are described as
small-calibre rapid-fire weapons whereas I envision the larger class
guns throwing projectiles no smaller than those fired by comparable HVCs.
Possibly I'm just prejudiced by the number of models available in the
market with large-calibre guns looking for a role, and I'm certainly not
sticking HVC on a hovertank.
Although I didn't factor it in, I'd also favour replacing the current DFFG
dynamic with one nearer to Drake's powerguns. Let's face it, even the name
DFFG is a misnomer; what we really have is a rather soggy plasma cannon which
my group for one has forsworn ever to use again.
> Note that since each shot can potentially kill multiple targets...
I recollect one of the innumerable "low vs high technology" threads where
there was a need to put down swarms of low-technology "militia" before
they overran the high-technology forces. Logically, this is what APSWs
were originally designed to do, but they need to be able to eliminate multiple
stands in the time available.
> I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "cannister" and
I was under the vague impression that a cannister round flew its fused
distance then went bang, showering the immediate area downrange with
irregular-shaped fragments moving at the cannister's velocity, whereas
a flechette was a sabot round with multiple darts spreading from the muzzle in
a fairly tight pattern, but I'm freely mixing various proposals for future
technologies that I've come across over the years. A flechette dart wouldn't
tumble and would therefore strike the target with greater penetration, but
there would be less chance of being struck by one because of the smaller
number and the closer grouping.
I'm all in favour of giving powered armour a choice of weapons (spot
the Heavy Gear fan) so "AP" power armour would have a low-calibre weapon
with a high cyclic rate for dealing with unarmoured infantry. A more typical
PA would focus on knocking out vehicles or other powered armour.
> .. HELs and RFAC/2s firing at infantry in cover... end up with zero
I didn't mind knocking HEL & RFAC/2 down to zero effect as I couldn't
really see them doing recon-by-fire, which is what shooting at infantry
in soft cover can degenerate into.
> if some of the chances I propose seem a bit strange it's because I've
> ...whereas RFAC/1 is effective mainly through rate of fire, and the
Precisely. Rereading pg 8 I can see that I had mentally dropped 10mm
from the calibres. I was reckoning 25-30mm to be too slow to be really
effective against infantry and too small to fire a decent cannister round.
(And no, I am NOT volunteering to be shot at by any 25mm weapon in order to
prove this theory!).
Nathan
> CS Renegade wrote:
> >That was Jon's first draft. It has undergone a few rounds of
Not if they want to hit moving targets at long range...
> >>[on the multiplied die concept] I'm having difficulty losing my
> worrying me were fairly low - for example 1xD10 vs 3xD8 has a 15%
Question: why are you comparing Size/2 weapons vs. Armour/*4* in the
Accelerator against Size/2 weapons vs. Armour/*3* under the chits...?
> I realise I'm being blind to the possibility of a special chit here,
Bingo :-/ With 16% of the chits being specials, the odds for drawing one
or more are fairly high.
Also, if you remove the "damage" results (including the specials) you'll
need to replace them with something - otherwise you reduce the overall
lethality of the weapons. When updating the Accelerator I choose to treat
the "double damage" results (ie. DAM+MOB, MOB+SD:T and SD:T+DAM) and
"triple damage" (DAM+MOB+SD:T) as "destroyed" - at best such vehicles
can fire at a DOWN1 FCS modifier but not move, or can move at half speed but
not fire - either way they're pretty much out of the fight - and to
treat "single damage" (DAM, MOB or SD:T) results as "worth" half a kill. Let's
see how your examples look when evaluated in this way:
D10 corresponds to "R&Y" validity, so the chit equivalent of 1xD10 vs 3xD8
would give 4% chance of a BOOM plus 23% chance of some sort of damage
(including the SD:T and MOB). With the above rule of thumb I valued 4% kill
+ 23% damage to be similar to (4+23/2)% kills = 15.5%; the Accelerator
gives 15% of a kill + 6% damage for a "total" of 18% (15+6/2) - a little
high, but not too far out.
Two "R&Y" chits vs. Armour/3 gives a 27% chance of destroying the target
(either by drawing enough valid numerical chits or by BOOMs) and 32% of
damaging it, for a "total" of 27+32/2 = 43. The Accelerator gives a 38%
Pkill and 3% Pdamage, for a "total" of 38+3/2 = 39.5; a little low this
time but still in the right ballpark.
Two "R&Y" chits vs. Armour/4 gives a 14% chance of destroying the target
(either by drawing enough valid numerical chits or by BOOMs) and 28% of
damaging it, for a "total" of 14+28/2 = 28%; the Accelerator gives 25%
Pkill and 5% Pdamage for a "total" of 25+5/2 = 27.5%, and so on.
> >> Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a flatter
Yet lots of people have tried...
> > and why the Accelerator concept *doesn't* use just "single opposed
Sounds like you have a different definition of "flat" than I do, then. If you
plot the Pkill and Pdamage for the various combinations of validity and weapon
Size against target armour rating, the Accelerator gives curves that
look quite similar to the ones you get from the chits - in fact, in many
cases they're *more* curved than the chit ones.
> >Weapon:\Target: Militia Line PA
No, it doesn't extend to over the next column. The bit at the top of the
right-hand column is a separate paragraph which applies to "all the
above cases", not just to SLAMs; and it has indeed been corrected: the
validity bit on p.36 directly contradicts the validity table on p.29, and when
asked about it Mike Elliott (one of the DS2 authors) stated that p.29 was
correct and p.36 was wrong.
> > "direct translation" system:
Not that surprising if you allow heavy weapons to fire at them with R&Y
validity, mind you :-/
> Although I frequently arrange for both sides to field
Sounds as if you need to use a lot more terrain! Infantry doesn't like
wide-open plains; but if you play with terrain densities like those of
northern Europe (where you're lucky to have a LOS of more than 1 mile, and the
average LOS is IIRC about half that) they're a lot more useful.
> > Below "alternative infantry" system:
The projectiles fired by HVCs at vehicles are sub-calibre KE rounds with
large sabots, and the main reason the guns themselves are large-calibre
is that the gas pressure needs as big as possible an area to push against to
maximize the force on the projectile. With no gas pressure to worry about, the
MDCs can fire the same size of KE projectiles from a much
smaller-calibre barrel - an MDC barrel designed to fire today's "120mm"
KE rounds (fired from the HVC's 120mm ancestors) would need to be a little
over 1" in diameter, plus slits in the barrel walls for the fins.
(Note that DS2's description of HKPs is complete bunk - the weapons
described by that blurb would find it extremely difficult to get up to even
HVC performance...)
> Possibly I'm just prejudiced by the number of models available in the
How do you know they're large-*calibre*? Calibre only refers to the
*inner* diameter of the barrel, and whereas a HVC barrel is essentially just a
steel tube the MDC barrel is lined with a lot of equipment - magnets,
electrical circuits, cooling gear etc. - which is likely to make it much
thicker (ie., with a larger *outer* diameter) than a HVC or RFAC of the same
calibre.
> and I'm certainly not sticking HVC on a hovertank.
Because of the recoil? Then you shouldn't put big MDCs on them either -
MDCs throw similarly-sized projectiles at significantly higher
velocities, so their recoil is even worse than the HVCs'...
> Although I didn't factor it in, I'd also favour replacing the current
You really, *really* need to play with more terrain on the table.
> > Note that since each shot can potentially kill multiple targets...
Nope. In this situation you need to buy more APSWs, not to make the few
APSWs you already have über-powerful; there's a reason why vehicles in
Vietnam and Palestine tended to have up to one MG per crew member other than
the driver (and in a few extreme cases even he got one).
> >I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "cannister" and
There are two types of cannister (or "area-defence munitions", or any
other
of a number of less meat-grinder-sounding names) - those which are
essentially gigantic shotgun rounds and burst immediately after leaving the
muzzle, and those which are burst open by a small bursting charge at a
gunner-selected distance down-range; but both of them can contain either
flechettes, relatively large "grapeshot" (usually spheres or cubes made of
some heavy metal like tungsten) or a mix of the two. Irregular-shaped
fragments are far more likely to come from standard HE shells.
> A flechette dart wouldn't tumble
They don't *tumble* much (except the first flip-over for the ~50% of the
flechettes which are packed backwards in the round, both to use the available
space more efficiently and to help disperse the swarm once the
round bursts), but they *yaw* quite a lot which has similar effects.
> and would therefore strike the target with greater penetration,
Against soft armour (fabric), yes - often so much greater that it passes
straight through leaving only a very narrow wound channel. (Still no fun
when you're hit by a lot of them at once, of course!) Hard armour (metal or
ceramic plates) is very good at stopping flechettes though, so PA would be
essentially invulnerable to flechettes and many Line troops (eg. NSL Armoured
Infantry) would be mostly able to ignore them too.
> but there would be less chance of being struck by one because of the
There's not much difference between flechettes and "grapeshot" (can't
remember the English term for them at the moment :-( ) either in numbers
packed into a round or in dispersal. The flechettes go a bit further before
slowing down to much to do damage against unprotected targets, but OTOH
they're easier to defeat with armour or hard cover and don't inflict as nasty
wounds as the "grapeshot" do.
> I'm all in favour of giving powered armour a choice of weapons (spot
DS2 PA already *has* a choice of weapons: Basic "rifles" (what you call
"AP") drawing 3 chits in firefights and Close Assaults, GMS/L (focussing
on knocking out vehicles but not much use against other PA), LAD
(air-defence), and APSWs (heavier AP, increases their range to 12mu).
The only infantry specialist type they can't really use is Assault, and that's
only because Assault infantry are defined as drawing "3 chits" in Close
Assaults rather than "1 chit more than the corresponding Rifle type"...
> >.. HELs and RFAC/2s firing at infantry in cover... end up with zero
HEL can fire effectively unlimited numbers of shots, which is exactly what
you want for recon-by-fire. RFAC/2 are more limited since they use ammo,
but OTOH their HE rounds have a considerably larger lethal radius than the
RFAC/1 rounds do so they don't *need* as much ammo to saturate the same
area.
> >>if some of the chances I propose seem a bit strange it's because
Re-read that page again - DS2 doesn't really *have* any category for
10-15mm propellant-powered weapons. They're nominally included among the
APSWs, but they really should be more powerful than that - I prefer to
treat them as "Size/0.5" weapons, but that's very much a house rule.
> I was reckoning 25-30mm to be too slow to be really effective against
25-30mm cannon can have rates of fire of several hundred rounds per
minute (that's where the "RF" in "RFAC" comes from!), and are large enough to
fire moderately powerful HE shells. Such cannon are *extremely* effective
against infantry in the open or soft cover for as long as their ammo
lasts :-/
Regards,
> <http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200110/msg00036.html>
> CS Renegade wrote:
> Why is the proposed HEAT class restricted to missiles? Given the
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
> Not if they want to hit moving targets at long range...
I wasn't implying a through-barrel missile system here, just an
ordinary HVC HEAT shell as opposed to one employing the simple KE approach. My
reading of the above was that a conventional KE round fired at long range from
an HVC would be rolling a D4 for effect, whereas an HEAT round from the same
gun would be rolling the same number of D10 (and might also be argued to be
exempt from APFC).
Moving targets? An evading target gets a secondary D8, but that would apply
regardless of the nature of the shell fired at it.
Is this a real-world consideration (i.e. only modern APFSDS has that
sort of range)?
> [on the multiplied die concept] I'm having difficulty losing my
I managed to mangle my example. If all colours are valid, the chance
of two chits knocking out armour/4 is only 11% until the special
damage chits are factored in.
> I realise I'm being blind to the possibility of a special chit
> Bingo :-/ With 16% of the chits being specials, the odds for
I'd agree with that interpretation of combined specials.
> Let's see how your examples look when evaluated in this way:
So it does. I was still thinking of the original version that used both D12
and D10 for full validity.
> Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a
If I draw one chit I get a variable set of outcomes based on the relative
frequency of chit values. If I draw two chits I get a pyramid, skewed for the
same reason. If I draw three or more chits then I get a bell curve. Against
that, multiplied or not, a single polyhedral die can only give a flat
distribution of equally likely outcomes. Now we combine the results of two
polyhedral dice; it doesn't matter if they are added or subtracted, both count
as a combination for calculating probabilities. It does matter that they are
possibly of different geometries and may be multiplied by different factors,
but only for working out the values of all the possible outcomes. I would
expect the distribution to still be a simple pyramid and a fairly even one at
that, and the differing dice and factors only serve to alter its shape.
Erm, I've just criticised the core FMA mechanic, haven't I? Oops, didn't mean
to do that.
> Weapon:\Target: Militia Line PA
> There appears to be something I'm not aware of regards chit
> ...the validity bit on p.36 directly contradicts the validity
A bad dream is coming back to haunt me. I've a nasty suspicion that when I
first read DS2 I picked up on this and decided that pg 36 had to be correct
because pg 29 made vehicle weapons ludicrously ineffective when shooting at
infantry. Still, there's no arguing with the author's opinion. Amazing how the
memory plays tricks, isn't it?
> Although I frequently arrange for both sides to field infantry,
> Sounds as if you need to use a lot more terrain! Infantry doesn't
One criticism normally levelled at my group's FT2 games is that we use too
small an area (typically 48 x 72mu, which is a squeeze even for cinematic
movement). Using a cm scale for DS2 we have an area of 120x182 available, with
games played sometimes down and sometimes across the table. Open areas between
obstacles are often in the
region of 50-80cm, and no-one goes thrashing through terrain because
it takes too long to get anywhere, so encounters generally will be in the open
bits. We could try a ridge down the middle of the
table...
> Regards my "alternative" figures, I nearly didn't post them as
> The projectiles fired by HVCs at vehicles are sub-calibre KE
> (Note that DS2's description of HKPs is complete bunk - the
Doesn't DS2's HKP concept presume far higher barrel pressures? As to why this
might be better than sticking with the HVC design, the weapon would be smaller
and the ammunition would take up less space and be less volatile. (The exotic
HKP propellants might even be fed from a tank rather than loaded as a
cartridge or charge.) Do modern
MBTs still have hand-loaded rounds, and if so, how close to the
limits of manual handling are they? Wouldn't MBT design and logistics both be
easier if the round was just the penetrator and a
half-litre of skunkworks moonshine?
> Possibly I'm just prejudiced by the number of models available
> Calibre only refers to the inner diameter of the barrel, and
True, but I like the idea of a gun that can fire a variety of
different rounds - AP, AT, GMS, LAD, mirror smoke, snapshot drone
reconnaissance... At some point in the range of mass driver weapons the
calibre has to go up, or there's no point in having mass driver artillery.
> and I'm certainly not sticking HVC on a hovertank.
> Because of the recoil? Then you shouldn't put big MDCs on them
As the HKP is a development of the HVC, I'd view ground-effect and
then gravitic mobility as technological steps forward from wheeled
and track-laying systems. They aren't parallel developments and a
force will only utilise an earlier system if it is unable to buy /
build the latest equipment. An HVC just strikes me as an anachronism on a
hovertank.
> Note that since each shot can potentially kill multiple targets
> Nope. In this situation you need to buy more APSWs, not to make
I've no objection to APSW (or similar weapons) being shifted to very low
effectiveness by the imposition of cover, but they should be highly effective
against infantry advancing over open ground.
> I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "cannister" and
> There are two types of cannister <snip> - those which are
Thanks for sorting out my understanding of these weapons; it's been too long
since I've looked at the relevant publications.
I would expect a cannister round that burst on leaving a contemporary HVC to
have a very limited range and thus only be useful as a final defensive
munition.
By contrast, a sabot-riding bundle of flechette darts leaving a
DS2 MDC would be travelling _very_ quickly, and given the same
cross-section / weight ratio of a full-sized rod the darts could
be expected to travel just as far.
> A flechette dart wouldn't tumble
> They don't *tumble* much (except the first flip-over for the
> and would therefore strike the target with greater penetration,
> Against soft armour (fabric), yes - often so much greater that it
So if my high-speed flechette isn't sufficient, what vehicular
weapon could be devised to defeat power armour? Given the above table, all we
have at the moment are APSWs and other PA, and I'm a bit sceptical about
anything less than an HMG ("class 0.5") standing any chance at all. The APSW
doesn't appear to be described anywhere other than on pg 11, but I have always
taken it to include
all the smaller-calibre MGs too.
> I'm all in favour of giving powered armour a choice of weapons
> DS2 PA already *has* a choice of weapons: Basic "rifles" (what you
I'd view powered armour as being short-changed in all of those
roles, though increasing their capabilities could rightly lead to an increase
in their points value. It depends on whether one depicts power armour as a
DARPA exoskeleton with a bit of armour,
a fully-pressurised suit of interlocking segments or the last
step before the DS2 Infantry Walker (i.e. close to a Dreampod 9 'Gear). Given
the least of these options I'd still let power armour take two of the above
options and give them a better Close Assault capability.
Nathan "building better worlds through superior firepower" Girdler
> At 11:22 PM +0100 9/8/04, CS Renegade wrote:
Its dependant on fire control computers and not the rounds for the most part.
> One criticism normally levelled at my group's FT2 games is that we
More hills and more hummocks in the middle. Add more small tree clusters and
farm steads. Bits of felt with a lichen on it for height
is great for a clump of trees/brush for soft cover and obscurement.
> Doesn't DS2's HKP concept presume far higher barrel pressures? As to
Yep.
> limits of manual handling are they? Wouldn't MBT design and
Currently manually handled weapons in the 105/125mm range are faster
than autoloaded weapons. You really don't have the space for a good sized ammo
load and an autoloader that can load at any elevation angle. So, your
autoloader requires the main gun to elevate to a specific point to reload.
That slow's down your rate of fire big time.
> True, but I like the idea of a gun that can fire a variety of
Mass driver artillery will be the more flexible weapons with large caliber
projectiles as they'll be able to carry payloads, sensors, and brilliant
munitions.
> As the HKP is a development of the HVC, I'd view ground-effect and
Hover vehicles are not so new. Vietnam had them. The biggest issue is that
mass reaction causes some problems with large caliber weapons and a small
hover vehicle.
> I've no objection to APSW (or similar weapons) being shifted to
Well, cover tends to do very little against a 7.62mm round. Trees are not much
help. Nor are stone walls.
> >>>
The vietnam era Canister could be set for Muzzel Action or a delay
based on range/time function on a traditional artillery fuze. There's
little reason to differentiate in the future when this is a standard item from
the 70's.
> By contrast, a sabot-riding bundle of flechette darts leaving a
They'll loose velocity very quickly however based on size/weight.
> So if my high-speed flechette isn't sufficient, what vehicular
HE with good sized fragments. 155mm HE can defeat armored vehicle armor quite
nicely. It did so in WWII and will do so now. Some tests of 155mm HE rounds on
some armored targets showed very large rents and cuts in the armor that would
either mission kill the target or severely degrade performance. Against a PA
trooper, well, does he like not having a leg or arm?
ICM would also work nicely against PA. So would larger point detonating rounds
like 25mm and such fired at indiviudals (easier with PA as they're bigger and
more obvious than your regular crunchie).
> table, all we have at the moment are APSWs and other PA, and I'm
Yep, needs some correction. However you can cut a tree down with a 7.62mm MG.
Likewise you could punch through a brick wall with it. German MG42s were doing
a number on US army M3 halftracks in the frontal arc through the engine bay
armor, through the firewall and into the crew space with 40's ap ammo. I'd
hate to see what a 30 caliber round in the future would do at moderate ranges.
G'day,
> I would expect the distribution to still be a
You can get a bell curve, it just takes multiple dice.
...and you have to hold your tongue in just the right angle so you don't
accidently topple them over, bit like building a house out of cards;P
> Erm, I've just criticised the core FMA mechanic, haven't I? Oops,
Nothing wrong with doing that. Some of the critiques with the FMA mechanic
have lead to subtle changes such as rolling n dice rather than just
multiplying armour roll by n in SG games etc.
Cheers
[forwarded for Oerjan Ohlson]
> CS Renegade wrote:
> Not if they want to hit moving targets at long range...
Neither was I. It is the UNguided HEAT rounds which have problems hitting
moving targets at long range, not the (guided or self-guiding) missiles.
> Moving targets? An evading target gets a secondary D8,
I'm talking about moving targets in the "real world" here, not moving targets
on the DS2 table.
Due to their shape HEAT (and HESH, and any other rounds containing HE charges)
rounds slow down quickly once they've left the muzzle, giving them both
relatively long flight times and high trajectories when fired against targets
at long ranges. Long flight times greatly increases the risk that
the target will make course and/or speed changes while the round is in
the air (not necessarily in an attempt to dodge the round; it is more likely
that the course/speed change is made to avoid some minor obstacle in the
target vehicle's path), and a high trajectory means that any such
course/speed changes have a considerable (and detrimental) effect on the
hit probability.
KE rounds don't slow down nearly as much thanks to their much better
aerodynamic shapes, and therefore both arrive faster (minimizing the risk
for any random target course/speed changes while the round is underway)
and follow flatter trajectories (which reduces the effect of any
course/speed
changes the target happens to make anyway) - with a much greater
long-range
accuracy as the result.
In DS2 terms, you could fire unguided HEAT rounds from HVCs if you want
-
but if the target moved more than maybe half its BMF in its latest Activation
(not just "evasive" movement!) you should shift the FCS die type down 2 steps
per extra range band instead of just 1. (If the target did *not* move more
than half its BMF in its latest Activation you use the FCS die specified in
DS2 as usual.)
Contrary to Ryan's remark, this has everything to do with the round and
nothing to do with the fire control computer: the FCS can't compensate for any
actions the target takes after the round has left the barrel, and it is the
type of round, not the FCS, which determines both whether or not the target
has time to take any such actions at all and how big an impact any such
actions have on the hit probability.
[snip]
> But the distributions are still flat
> If I draw one chit I get a variable set of outcomes based on
The probabilities for the individual numerical values form a kind of a
skewed bell curve if you draw enough chits, that's true - but that's
irrelevant for the DS damage system, because you're not interested in the
probabilities for the individual numerical values - only in the
probabilities for *groups* of such values.
Eg., let's say that you're drawing 3 chits against an Armour/4 vehicle
(and ignore any Special chits for now in order to keep the example reasonably
simple <g>). The numerical results can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or
9,
and each of these results has its own propability of occurring; together they
form a kind of skewed bell curve. You're entirely correct that a single
pair of opposed dice can't replicate this distribution - *but it doesn't
have to do that*! When shooting at an Armour/4 target there's no point
in tracking the separate probabilities for the 0, 1, 2 and 3 results, because
they all have the same effect on the target (ie., none at all); all that is
important is the *total* probability for getting any one of these four
results. Similarly it doesn't matter which of the 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 results you
get, because any of them will destroy the target; so all you need to know is
the *total* probability for getting one of them.
IOW, instead of having 3n+1 numerical results where "n" is the number of
chits drawn, you only have *3* relevant statistical events no matter how many
chits you draw: these events are "total numerical value drawn is less than
target Armour", "total numerical value drawn is equal to target Armour", and
"total numerical value drawn exceeds the target Armour". Adding in the special
chits add a large number of further combinations to the
3n+1
"sub-events", but with the above "two different 'damage' results equals
one kill" simplification there are still only 3 results *that are relevant to
the game*: "no effect", "damage" (including specials), and "kill".
IOW, the Accelerator doesn't *need* to re-create the entire bell-curve
distribution of all the possible numerical results (which is fortunate, since
it can't <g>); all it needs to do is to emulate the 3 relevant
probabilities for "no effect", "damage" and "destruction" - and that
*is*
possible for a single pair of opposed dice to do with the aid of the Size and
Armour multipliers. If you shoot at a target with a different Armour rating
you'll get another set of 3 probabilities for the "no effect",
"damage" and "kill" events since the "sub-events" are grouped together
differently - but you still only have 3 probabilities to emulate, and
the Accelerator handles that by changing the Armour multiplier. If you change
the weapon size or type (ie., the number of chits drawn or their validity)
you'll get yet other sets of 3 probabilities; the Accelerator handles them
by changing the rating multipliers and/or the die types.
> Erm, I've just criticised the core FMA mechanic, haven't I?
Nope, but you have given an excellent demonstration of the difference between
calculating statistics correctly and understanding what they
actually mean ;-)
> ...the validity bit on p.36 directly contradicts the validity table on
> p.29, and when asked about it Mike Elliott stated that p.29 was
Yep.
> Still, there's no arguing with the author's opinion.
Of course there is - what do you think I'm doing on the playtest list
all the time...? (Heck, according to the DS2 authors' opinion the HKP concept
works, and I'm *definitely* arguing with that...)
However, if you're going to create an alternative game mechanic which gives
roughly the same results as the original ones, you first need to know for
certain exactly what it is the original mechanics do (which means knowing what
author's opinion is, regardless of whether or not you agree with
it) -
otherwise you can't argue either for or against it :-/
> Sounds as if you need to use a lot more terrain! Infantry doesn't like
> wide-open plains; but if you play with terrain densities like those of
> northern Europe (where you're lucky to have a LOS of more than 1 mile,
> and the average LOS is IIRC about half that) they're a lot more
In other words you have longer average lines of sight than the Coalition had
in the flattest desert areas during Desert Storm!
In contrast representing an average north-European battlefield in the
same
cm scale would give you open areas between obstacles in the *5-20* cm
range, with longer lines of sight being very rare. As Ryan suggested, try
using a
lot more small LOS-blocking terrain features (small hills, copses,
isolated houses and the like, all of which block LOS but don't hinder movement
much)
- and see what differences that makes to tactics and weapon
effectiveness.
> (Note that DS2's description of HKPs is complete bunk - the weapons
> even HVC performance...)
Sure does; it also assumes smaller calibres and longer barrels. Each of these
assumptions has its own problems, and together they are outright disastrous:
* In any propellant-powered gun, the force on the projectile (incl.
sabot)
is equal to the barrel cross-section area times the propellant gas (or
plasma) pressure. The barrel cross-section area is proportional to the
square of the calibre; eg. for a round barrel cross-section the area is
equal to calibre^2*Pi/4 (plus a little extra for the rifling if there is
any). This means that a smaller-calibre barrel either needs higher
pressure or a longer barrel, or both, just to get the SAME muzzle energy as a
larger-calibre barrel would give - and the pressure and/or length
increases necessary for this are quite large: eg., if you decrease the calibre
by
one-third you need to increase the maximum pressure and/or barrel length
by a total factor of 2.25 just to get back to the *original*
(large-calibre)
muzzle energy. If you want to beat the large-barrel performance (ie.,
achieve an even *higher* muzzle energy), you need even higher pressures
and/or longer barrels.
* Increasing the length of the barrel significantly is impractical for two
main reasons: vehicle manoeuvrability and barrel droop. Today's MBT gun
barrels are around 5-6 meters long, and they already cause problems when
the tank is manoeuvring in restricted spaces (eg. roads lined with lamp posts
or road signs) since it is tricky to avoid banging the barrel into obstacles.
Imagine what'll happen if you increase the barrel length by another several
meters! (...the Tiger scene in "Kelly's Heroes" springs to mind...) Barrel
droop is less intuitive: gun barrels are always slightly bent by gravity, but
when they're fired they straighten out temporarily and can also sometimes
start wobbling a bit. Of course this movement isn't very large; but it is
large enough to impart a small transverse velocity component to the round as
it goes down the barrel, and since this transverse movement is
slightly random the FCS can't compensate fully for it - which hurts the
gun's accuracy. The longer the barrel is, the more it'll droop and the larger
a transverse velocity it'll impart to the round, and therefore the greater the
accuracy problems become.
* Increasing the pressure also causes problems, because it means that you need
to increase the thickness of the barrel walls to prevent the barrel
from bursting. If you only want your low-calibre, high-pressure HKP to
*match* the HVC performance, you'll need to increase the thickness of the
barrel walls and/or length so much that the HKP barrel will weigh at
least
as much as the HVC barrel - and often more, because the pressure
generally drops slower in the narrower HKP barrel so it needs to be thicker
for a larger proportion of its length than the HVC barrel does. And this was
just to *match* the HVC performance; if you want your HKP to *exceed* the HVC
performance you need a longer and/or even thicker-walled barrel (able to
withstand even higher pressures), resulting in a weapon which is significantly
heavier than the corresponding HVC.
All in all, for a *given* weapon performance (projectile weight and velocity)
the HKP as described in DS2 will be at least as clumsy, heavy and expensive as
the HVC, and quite likely worse in all three respects. If the HKP is to
perform *better* than the HVC, ie. fire heavier projectiles
and/or
fire its projectiles at a higher velocity, it will be even heavier, clumsier
and more expensive than the corresponding HVC - and if in addition it is
longer, it will also be both harder to manoeuvre with and less accurate than
the HVC.
Makes the HKPs sound like a really good deal, doesn't it?
> As to why this might be better than sticking with
Nope. See above.
> and the ammunition would take up less space and be less volatile.
A bit less space for the rounds themselves due to the smaller sabots, but not
for the propellant.
> (The exotic HKP propellants might even be fed from a tank
The HVCs are already described as using liquid propellants, so no difference
there.
> Do modern MBTs still have hand-loaded rounds, and if so, how close to
Most do and fairly close, respectively.
> Wouldn't MBT design and logistics both be easier if the round was just
Nope; Ryan's comments are right on target here. In addition liquid propellants
requires a lot of sealed tubing to get from the storage tanks into the guns
(unless of course you put it in cartridges similar to how today's solid
propellant is handled), and loading the propellant separately from the
projectile increases the loading time since there are two separate things
which must be loaded in sequence instead of just one single cartridge.
> Possibly I'm just prejudiced by the number of models available in the
> market with large-calibre guns looking for a role,
> with a lot of equipment - magnets, electrical circuits, cooling gear
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the *models* look like, and it
was the visual appearance of the models you used as an argument above.
Besides, virtually all gun barrels are over-size on DS2-scale models
since
they'd be way too thin to cast or use in gaming otherwise - eg., even an
152mm "HVC" gun barrel would be a mere 0.6mm thick if it were modelled true
to scale, and a 25mm autocannon barrel in 1/300 scale would be about
0.05mm thick.
> and I'm certainly not sticking HVC on a hovertank.
I'd rather describe it as a *degradation* of the HVC :-/
> I'd view ground-effect and then gravitic mobility as technological
Gravitic mobility yes, but hovercraft have been with us for decades already
- without even threatening to replace wheels and track-layers except in
a small number of specialized niches...
> They aren't parallel developments
Exactly - they *aren't* parallel developments. And since they aren't,
there's no reason whatever why would a force able to build *hovercraft* must
necessarily be able to build *weapons* better than HVCs as well.
> and a force will only utilise an earlier system if it is unable to buy
This is just plain wrong; most forces will utilise an earlier system even if
it could afford later ones as long as it earlier system is demonstrably more
effective than the later. As for arming hovercraft, putting *any*
large-recoil weapons on a hovercraft causes problems as soon as you
attempt
to fire them - there's a very good reason why today's military
hovercraft are armed with missiles, machineguns and light autocannon (ie.,
low-recoil
weapons) instead of with large-calibre tank or ship guns.
> I've no objection to APSW (or similar weapons) being shifted
*ALL* weapons should be highly effective against infantry advancing over open
ground. In DS2 however *ALL* weapons are massively degraded against *ALL*
types of targets by the simple fact that the weapons get to fire only
one shot (or burst) during an entire 15-minute game turn - whereas
real-world weapons could fire dozens, hundreds or even thousands of
shots
during a 15-minute firefight.
> Thanks for sorting out my understanding of these weapons;
Muzzle-bursting canister rounds have a lethal range against unarmoured
infantry of 100-600 meters, depending on the size and type of gun that
fires
it and the terrain. (And, as Ryan said the muzzle-bursting and
long-range
canister rounds are often the same type fired at different range settings.)
> By contrast, a sabot-riding bundle of flechette darts leaving
...when it leaves the muzzle. The problem is that they would also *slow down*
very quickly as soon as they leave the sabot, due to the large air resistance
the yawing caused by the separation from the sabot gives.
> , and given the same cross-section / weight ratio of a full-sized rod
"Given the same...", sure. But they don't, because unless you use a much
denser material in the flechettes than you do in the full-sized rods
(which is highly unlikely, since you're already using as dense a material as
you
can in your full-sized rods) the only way you can give the flechettes
the
same areal density (ie., weight/cross-section ratio) as the full-sized
rod
is to make them the same LENGTH as the full-sized rod - and if you make
your flechettes that long, you'll also need to make them as *thick* as the
full-sized rod to allow them to survive being fired without bending or
breaking up in flight! 'Course, if the flechettes are both the same length
and the same thickness as the full-sized rods, then they are full-sized
rods themselves and not flechettes at all...
In short, your flechettes *won't* have the same areal density as the
full-sized rods. Unless they're actual full-sized rods they'll have a
lower areal density, which means that even without the yawing caused by the
sabot separation they'll be far worse affected by the air resistance.
> So if my high-speed flechette isn't sufficient, what
Heavy bullets - 0.5" and up. Larger HE grenades should work OK too -
25-40
mm HE (including ICM) are too wimpy unless they score direct hits, but once
the grenade calibre is above 80mm or so the shrapnel should be able to get
through the body armour. Then of course you have white-hot plasma,
high-energy laser pulses, or plain old flame-throwers to burn the suit's
sensors out and boil the guy inside alive... in fact pretty much everything
*else* in the DS2 arsenal would realistically work better against PA than
flechettes do.
> Given the above table, all we have at the moment are APSWs
Today's 7.62 AP bullets go through approx. 15mm RHA (standard, fairly soft
reference steel plate) or around 40mm of high-grade aluminium armour...
it all depends on how much you can armour your PA suits before they sink into
the ground :-/
> The APSW doesn't appear to be described anywhere other than on pg
If you look at the effects the APSWs have in the game rather than at their PSB
description, the *only* thing the APSW mechanic covers are the
medium-calibre MGs - it is way too weak to represent today's HMGs, AGLs
and
similarly-sized weapons at all (which is why I want to introduce a
"size/0.5" class to represent them!). The smallest DS2 MGs,
corresponding to today's 5.56 LMGs and SAWs, are already included in the Line
infantry's "Rifle" fire stats.
> DS2 PA already *has* a choice of weapons: [snip]
Short-changed compared to *what*? Not compared to any other units in the
game, that's for sure - PA already have the best anti-infantry weapons
in the game, some of the best armours in the game, the best Close Assault
capability in the game (all enemies gets an extra Confidence penalty for being
CA:ed by PA); and while they don't have any particularly impressive
anti-tank capability they're just too *small* to carry any direct-fire
anti-vehicle guns larger than what could be represented by the IAVR or
GMS mechanics since such guns are as big as an entire entire PA suit anyway!
(One PA suit takes up 2 capacity points when carried in a vehicle; an
arm-mounted Size/1 weapon on a Walker also takes up 2 capacity points.)
If you want such heavy weapons on your suits, the suits will be big enough to
rate as vehicles - so use the "Infantry Walker" mechanics to represent
them, not the "PA" mechanics!
Regards,
Oerjan
Hi All,
So, the only real problem I have with this paragraph is that in DSII terms
there is NO modifier for non-evading targets movement in the fire
system.
Thus, rather than dropper per range band, etc., I would suggest that if you
wanted to allow for HEAT rounds for HVCs, give them whatever
chit/chit
validity is appropriate and reduce the firer accuracy by 1 die type.
Unless you're talking about DSIII or DSII.5, the "target moving" modifier just
doesn't exist.:)
J
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Roger Burton West wrote:
> [forwarded for Oerjan Ohlson]
> At 2:43 PM +0100 9/10/04, Roger Burton West wrote:
missiles.
Given that guided rounds are becoming more common, what would be wrong with a
bit of terminal guidance in the round, even if only small fins that deploy and
adjust to a moving target?
> Contrary to Ryan's remark, this has everything to do with the round and
Perhaps its a question of gray area between future round guidance and the FCS
systems.
FCS could include some terminal guidance in the round and still not cross the
line with GMS weapons. Further you have a greater variety of rounds that are
fired with a gun than with the typical GMS system. They're already looking at
this for simple tube artillery. Not hard to expect this for the larger direct
fire guns of the future.
Over very long distances time of flight of a Sabot round will still
be rather long enough for non-evasive maneuvers to take a target out
of the hit probability area. a 2.5 second flight time is the thing here. A
vehicle can move a long distance in 2.5 seconds. Granted, the slower large
caliber rounds will have a longer TOF, but terminal guidance could compensate
here.
There should be a movement vs static position modifier I think, at least for
the long range shots.
Over on Tank.net, ray II has related how he engaged a static T-72 at
beyond the FCS's indicated range in his M1 Abrams by using the Backup sight to
estimate the range.
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001424-3.html
Suffice to say, even at 4000meters a 120mm APFSDF is going to have a long time
of flight.
> At 10:09 AM -0400 9/10/04, John K Lerchey wrote:
Don't forget to pull chits as for GMS weapons. Specifically with regards to
range not affecting types of chits pulled and with regards to reactive armor
effects.
[Forwarded by Roger for Oerjan again]
> John K Lerchey wrote:
> So, the only real problem I have with this paragraph is that in DSII
The original question was why HVCs don't fire HEAT rounds with *the same* chit
validities as GMSs, IAVRs and SLAMs (after all it is the same type of
warhead in all of these) - and none of these other weapon types have
their chit validities tied to the range band.
IOW, if you like CS Renegade want to use a single HEAT warhead category to
represent GMSs, IAVRs, SLAMs *and* HVCs, then you have to put the
long-range
hit difficulties in the to-hit roll rather than in the chit validity.
(It also saves you from explaining to all and sundry why the effect of HVC
HEAT warheads degrades with increasing range when the effect of SLAM HEAT
warheads doesn't :-/ ) If OTOH you're OK with two having *different*
HEAT categories, then your solution works (except that you will have to
explain
to everyone why HVC HEATs degrade with range while SLAM ones don't :-/
).
************************************************************************
****
************
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Neither was I. It is the UNguided HEAT rounds which have problems
[...]
> FCS could include some terminal guidance in the round and still not
Not for HEAT rounds, it can't - nor for anything else which needs to get
within a few meters of the target or even strike it directly before
exploding; if you want this kind of long-range precision from rounds
this slow and heavy you need fins and terminal guidance circuits about the
same size as those on a "real" ATGM (or GMS, if you prefer the DS2 term). The
only thing a gun-launched guided round can really skimp on compared to a
"real" ATGM is the rocket engine to propel it, but that's only important for
launching the round; it'll still behave like an ATGM during the terminal
phase.
If your round *doesn't* need to get close to its target, like eg.
"MAK-style" artillery submunitions which fire from 100+ meters up in the
air
or flechette/shrapnel anti-personnel rounds with large lethal radii,
then
you don't need as elaborate guidance equipment - but then you're also
not talking about big HEAT warheads.
(To use real-world examples, this is the main difference between STRIX
(target-seeking 120mm anti-tank mortar round with a HEAT warhead) and
SADARM/BONUS (two rivalling but *very* similar "MAK-style" 155mm
artillery
rounds, each carrying 2 EFP-armed target-seeking submunitions): the
STRIX needs to physically strike its target before detonating and therefore
devotes a huge part of its mass and volume to trajectory-correcting
rocket engines, whereas the BONUS and SADARM submunitions merely wobble around
during their 200m+ descent and detonate as soon as they happen to be
pointing towards a target that matches their pre-programmed criteria.
Each
SADARM/BONUS carrier grenade contains two separate submunitions, yet is
smaller than a single STRIX since it doesn't need all that bulky manoeuvring
equipment.)
> Further you have a greater variety of rounds that are fired with a gun
The "simple tube artillery" rounds they're doing this on all have payloads
which don't need to get very close to moving targets; most of them are
intended to reduce artillery dispersion against *static* targets -
that's how they get away with using simpler guidance gear.
If OTOH you want your round to get close enough to hit hit a moving target
with a big HEAT warhead (as opposed to spraying tiny DP-ICMs over the
entire neighbourhood in the hope that at least one of them will hit
something),
then you will need something very similar to an engine-less (or even
weak-engined) ATGM.
> Over very long distances time of flight of a Sabot round will still
Certainly, and that is a major part of the reason why DS2's HVCs, HKPs and
MDCs all have a lower hit probability at Long range than they do at Medium
(the other part being that the longer the range, the harder it is to detect
the target without having minor obstacles getting in the way). However,
there's also a very big difference between the 2.5 second flight time of a
modern KE round to long range and the 5+ seconds it takes a HE(-AT, -SH,
etc.) round to reach the same range - particularly since the HE(...)
rounds' steeper trajectories make them more sensitive to a given target
deviation than the KE rounds (with flatter trajectories) are.
> There should be a movement vs static position modifier I think, at
Kinda-sorta. With target detection and identification also being baked
into
the DS2 to-hit roll (it has to be, since otherwise there's no way in
hell to make the DS2 hit probabilities even remotely believable when compared
to today's performance), the higher probability for hitting static target once
they've been detected could be cancelled by the greater difficulty of
detecting them in the first place (unless they reveal themselves by firing
etc., of course).
> Over on Tank.net, ray II has related how he engaged a static T-72 at
Yep. IIRC the 5500+-meter kill of a static T-55 by a UK tank during ODS
was
done by a very similar technique - but note that the targets in both
cases were static, not moving. 'Course, with only a few scattered examples to
go
on and no records about how many similar long-range shots that *missed*
it
is hard to say anything much about it - after all, even a D4 FCS die (D4
*after* shifts for range, that is) can score occasional hits against D12
Signature + D12 Secondary dice if it gets lucky enough :-/
Regards,