> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
What should I search for? I looked at everything under DS, DSIII, DS3, weapon
converion, and even tried Oerjan:author. Are you sure it was to the regular
list and not the test list?
And what I mean is that we don't use chits. We use a Impact vs. Armor die roll
adopted from SG2, with ideas cherrypicked from all of the "FMA conversion
rules" that we could find on the 'net.
Additionally, the base DS2 rules make a number of assumptions for the weapon
stats that do not fit with a lot of other backgrounds. We worked out a number
of characteristics that can be easily tailored to make different weapons types
or variations. E.g. DS2 lasers are long range but not powerful, while in 40K
they are the 2nd or 3rd best AT weapon, and in battletech and centurion, while
not the best they are quite good in the AT role.
J
Definately the regular list, as I'm not on the test list.
Found it:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199903/msg00351.html
It was actually posted by JonT as "Dirtside Accelerator".
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
> Brendan wrote:
> Definately the regular list, as I'm not on the test list.
That post was my starting point, but I tweaked it to match the chit system
better (except for the SD:F result which I personally find extremely
unrealistic considering the DS2 timescale, but it could easily be put back in
if the players really insist on it). One such "tweaked" version is here:
<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200110/msg00036.html>
...though IIRC I've updated the system a bit further since then (haven't
had time to check yet though). It works OK as long as the players can quickly
multiply fairly low numbers with one another (up to 5x12 for standard DS2) and
determine which of two such products is larger than the
other, and it accommodates expanding (or fine-grading) of weapon sizes
and armour ratings without any problems (allowing me to field my
8/3/1-armoured
Abrams <g>). However, if you have any mathematically challenged players they
probably won't like it at all.
Brian Bilderback developed a different DS-FMA system using a high/low
die concept in addition to varying the die sizes, a bit reminiscent of Silent
Death's damage system; it gives very nearly as close a match to the chits
as my system does and is considerably less maths-intensive, but it isn't
as
flexible if you want to go outside DS2's "1 - 5" class range. Not sure
if it was ever posted here though; that may have been private discussion and
playtest list only.
Later,
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
This is the missing idea that we needed!
We kicked it around this weekend, and we are going to use a range of Armor Die
types, but we are going to take the next step too; since we use the SG2 range
of base die types (up to d12x2), we are going to do the same for armor.
I.e. for normal vehicles, the top of the scale will be d12, but special,
setting specific, units will have a x2 multiplier. Examples: Battletech 'Mechs
Centurion grav tanks Ogres
Chobham-armored moderns
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199903/msg00351.html
Applying a x2 multiplier to the Armour *die type* is equivalent to applying
the same x2 multiplier to the Armour *rating* - so what you're really
doing
with this x2 multiplier is to allow armour ratings higher than 5 :-)
(Which is of course a Good Thing, and something I've argued for for years.)
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
In game effect, yes and no. By allowing the QUALITY of the armor to go up to
x2, that does not address, the total armor LEVEL. The concept that we had is
that the level denotes the amount, so that 500mm aluminum is not as good as
500mm KCNS (I don't know the terms for
non-naval steel armor), which in turn is not as good as 500mm Chobham.
Also, allowing the quality up to x2 does not preclude allowing higher levels.
Take, for example, the Ogre setting: present-day armored vehicles can
be encountered as milita/national guard type units, but future "modern"
equipment, armored in PBC is much tougher, and unmanned cybertanks can devote
much more of the vehicle to armor. So...
Conventional armor has a x1 multiplier PBC has a x2 multiplier manned vehicles
can be armored up to their size class cybertanks can be armored up to twice
their size class
thus a Paneuro superheavy (size 5) might have level 5 PBC (d10x10), but an
Ogre Mk I (also size 5) can have level 10 PBC (d10x20).
Makes that old M-1A2 (size 4, level 4 Chobham = d12x4) and T-90 (size
4, level 4 steel = d8x4) look pretty anemic.:)
Of course if no militia is involved, you can simply leave off the x2 for PBC.
J
[forwarded by Roger for Oerjan]
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Applying a x2 multiplier to the Armour *die type* is equivalent to
The Armour score is (Armour Quality Die Roll)*(Armour Rating).
If your Armour Quality Die is D12x2, your Armour score is
(D12x2)x(Armour Rating).
Mathematically - ie., in game effect - this is identical to (D12)x(2x
Armour
Rating) :-/
Regards,