I've been doing a good bit of DSII designing lately, and something's been
bothering me about the system. Let me see if I can put this into words; I've
only just managed to put my finger on what it is.
When you look at Full Thrust, it's very possible to have two ships of
identical mass (and virtually identical point cost) that are *very* different
from each other, but still very competitive. Ship X may have Pulse Torps and
screens, while Ship Y has beam weapons and armor, but neither of the two is
clearly superior to the other.
It seems that DSII is missing this factor; it's very easy to see (and design)
the ideal tank. Given two grav tanks of similar size with turreted weapons,
designed by two different people, how different are the end results going to
be?
If they are designing in a vacuum (no scenario or background restrictions to
worry about) you are likely to have a pair of almost identical vehicles:
assuming Size Class III, each will have an MDC(4), Superior Firecon, class 3
armor, the best ECM available...and if points are not a problem, two levels of
stealth.
There are a number of minor differences that are possible -- ablative or
reactive armor, APFCs, and so on -- but nothing that's likely to have
much game effect.
Doing my own designs, and self-limiting myself to Enhanced Firecons for
most vehicles (Basic is for low -tech, Superior for ultra-tech), I found
that there was a depressing sameness to the results. Going from a WYSIWYG
standpoint, there's not all that much that the system can do to differentiate
between a pair of tracked Class III tanks of similar tech level.
Solution? Beats me. I'd like to see something like the FT building system, or
even (bear with me for a moment here) classic Car Wars. Given $15,000 to
spend, you could end up with a ton of different vehicles, all of them of
similar combat potential. Maybe I need more experience with the system, but it
seems to me that DSII can't do the same right now.
I'm sure that there are folks willing to argue the contrary, so please:
somebody prove me wrong.
> On 4-Apr-02 at 09:25, John Crimmins (johncrim@voicenet.com) wrote:
> It seems that DSII is missing this factor; it's very easy to see (and
> the end results going to be?
If you are working from a mini they should be close. After all, at DS scale
how different are modern tanks from each other?
Replace your long gun with a SLAM system and things will be different.
GMS/Hs work well. Try going lower tech and see how many more tanks
you get. A completely different feel.
> Solution? Beats me. I'd like to see something like the FT building
I really would prefer not to go to the complexity of Car Wars.
Oh, it's just a preference, but I would prefer to keep capacity points.
The big problem I have is that low tech vehicles easily overwhelm a group of
equivalent point value high tech vehicles.
> John Crimmins wrote:
> When you look at Full Thrust, it's very possible to have two ships of
Ok, a couple of observations, YMMV. First of all, remember that comparisons
between FT ships and DS vehicles are inherently unfair. MBT's are, it seems to
me, intended to do two things really well: Kill other vehicles, especially
other MBT's, and scare the hell out of the Guys in the Wrong Uniforms. FT
ships, especially capital ships, are designed to do a MYRIAD of things: Kill
fighters, kill other ships, stop incoming missiles, protect other ships around
it, etc. The land equivalent of that isn't an MBT, it's an OGRE. I agree,
individual VEHICLE design may not be as varied in DS as ship design in FT, but
when you look at overall force structure, it IS quite possible to have a great
deal of variety between two roughly equal forces.
3B^2
> John Crimmins wrote:
Well, for me, depends on the mini in question. I have quite a few which have
different types of weapons mounts (SLAMS, what appear to
me to be laser-type cannons or DFFG weapons rather than MDCs or HKPs),
and I try to design with these thoughts in mind. So some (many) of my tank
units are not "idealized". I try not to munchkin thigns too much. Boring
otherwise.
> If they are designing in a vacuum (no scenario or background
I dunno. I mean, I do see your point, there isn't the same vast variety of
options as there are in FT ships, but I still have some variety. You can limit
this by not giving all your tanks fusion plants for engines. That'll limit
some of the weaponry you can mount automatically.
> Doing my own designs, and self-limiting myself to Enhanced Firecons
Woohoo! Someone else who does it. :-)
> I found that there
What I mentioned above. Use different engines; that can dramatically
change your weapons load-out. For my UNSC Colonial Armed Forces I
have the majority of the tanks as NON-Grav (too far away from repair
facilities; too expensive to maintain too many of them), and only a
few have fusion engines (the Grav-mobile units, a very few others).
Most of the tanks are hydromagnetic turbine, which limits the use
of MDCs as well. So if I want a heavy-hitting gun, I am forced to
go with HKPs (my Lahavs, Haifas, and Semtacs all use HMT engines,
and use HKP guns). But they have their drawbacks/restrictions that
MDCs don't, but hey, nothing's perfect. Right? :-)
Now, this isn't an ideal solution. But it's an option. The ESU force that I am
designing concurrent to my UNSC brigades have somewhat
better units (being a little closer to their repair/supply facilities),
and have more fusion drives and MDCs than the UNSC counterparts - but
unless it's a special vehicle or weapon, all have enhanced firecons.
> I'd like to see something like the FT building system, or even (bear
Not going to prove you wrong. I understand where you are coming from. But I
think with the current system you can still get a reasonable
amount of variety - just depends on what you're willing to restrict
yourself with (such as the firecons, as you have already done).
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:08:43 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Crimmins wrote:
> >identical mass (and virtually identical point cost) that are *very*
> >design) the ideal tank. Given two grav tanks of similar size with
You know, that's a damn good point -- I hadn't thought of it that way.
It's the gestalt that's the focus in DSII, not the individual vehicles. I
think that this is what Roger was getting at as well; caffeine must not have
kicked in at that point this morning.
What got me thinking about this was looking at my Renegade Legion cohort
boxes -- I couldn't think of much that I could do to really
differenitate the blue tanks from the red tanks in terms of performance.
I've partially solved the problem by putting new turrets on all of 'em,
allowing for more variation in weapon types (and now I need to place another
order with Brigade so I can work on the other side....), but I'll have to
fiddle with the force structure as well.
I do feel that lifting most of the restrictions -- on the class of
armor, the size of weapons, the *number* of weapons, Walker sizes, VTOL
restrictions --
goes a long way towards allowing what I'm looking for, and I've been doing
that in a number of small ways. I think that, since I'm generally desiging
both sides in a given conflict, I should start doing more of that.
Let that size 3 tank carry class 4 armor, let that size 2 tank destroyer carry
a size 4 HVAC, and so on, allow the APC to carry more 2 units *and* an
extra APSW, and so on. For the really high-tech forces, let them use
VTOL movement for their Grav tanks...that should show a significant tech
differential!
Food for thought, all around.
> At 9:24 AM -0500 4/4/02, John Crimmins wrote:
[snip]
> It seems that DSII is missing this factor; it's very easy to see
Look at the current trend in tanks. They all fall in the same category. There
is pretty much one way to make a tank. All of the side routes from WWII pretty
much fell by the wayside. Biggest main gun you can carry ammo for and still
have a reasonable load out. As much armor as you can put up front and on the
sides. A crew of 4 (usually) and extra MGs. Everything else is icing.
> Doing my own designs, and self-limiting myself to Enhanced Firecons
Land warfare has a number of roles that are specific to their nature. A Tank
has a big gun in a turret and lots of armor. Anything with a big gun and not a
lot of armor is a tank destroyer, an armored car, or an assault gun depending
on what it can do. It can try to be a tank, but it will have problems.
> Solution? Beats me. I'd like to see something like the FT building
Thats because Car wars was super un-realistic in how it works. You
can't fire a RR from within a car. You can't drive a car and operate multiple
weapons by your self.
> At 9:52 AM -0500 4/4/02, Roger Books wrote:
In a stand up fight, they should. But you don't get a battle out of nothing.
Presumably someone is thinking about funneling those masses? Where are the
mines and combat engineers?
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> It seems that DSII is missing this factor; it's very
Depends on what you want to do with it. Yes, most *Tanks* are going to look
the same. That's because there is pretty much one good way to swat enemy
tanks, which is what most tanks are designed to do. Smack them at long range
with the biggest gun you can carry. Be as survivable as possible against the
various threats on the battlefield. Simplicity is Better. Of course, for the
other roles you have on the battlefield (and if you don't need any other
vehicles, you're fighting a fool who doesn't understand how to use his
combined arms).
> There are a number of minor differences that are
> effect.
If Reactive Armor doesn't have a game effect, your
opponent isn't using enough GMS/Hs.
> Solution? Beats me. I'd like to see something like
> seems to me that DSII can't do the same right now.
First, you're focusing on the wrong thing. The joy of DSII's design system
isn't designing individual
vehicles, it's on designing force packages--complete
combined arms assortments that go and do missions.
> John Crimmins wrote:
> I've been doing a good bit of DSII designing lately, and something's
That's because the FTFB ship design system is the third iteration of the
Full Thrust design rules, and was based on 5-6 years of experience with
the
design rules in FT2 - which were about as one-sided as the current DS2
ones
- there was only one beam weapon worth using (A batteries), essentially
only three ship sizes worth using (namely the ones immediately below the
class thresholds), and level-3 screens was pretty much compulsory
(except
on escorts). DS2 today has similar problems - points-optimized designs
should always use Superior FCS, the maximum allowed level of reactive armour
(IAVRs and GMSs are far more dangerous than HELs), no Stealth etc. (Points
usually *are* a problem, and Stealth is freakin' expensive...)
Later,
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:57:51 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There are a number of minor differences that are
Actually, this is unquestionably the case -- and since I've been
designing both sides of the majority of games that I've played in the past, I
know exactly who to blame, too. I decided early on that GMS sytems "weren't
worth
it" because somehow I had the impression that they were one-shot
weapons. Since I've picked the game up again in the past few months, and
actually
*RTFM*, I know better. Multiple GMS/H systems are just plain nasty, to
the point that I feel guilty for designing a vehicle with as many launchers as
the mini seems to have.
> > Solution? Beats me. I'd like to see something like
This seems to be a consensus; I need to shift the way that I'm looking at the
game. I spend too much time staring at the individual tanks while I'm painting
them, I suppose. Gives me an inflated idea of their individual importance.
("You can't blow up that tank! I spent an hour painting that thing! It's too
PRETTY to die!")
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Multiple GMS/H systems are just plain nasty, to the
Which is why I generally don't design GMS/H carriers
bigger than size 2. They are more survivable (smaller signature) and you
generally don't need more than 2 launchers.
> This seems to be a consensus; I need to shift the
<TIC>
Roleplayers. Feh.
</TIC>
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:08:26 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
Just made a whole bunch of such vehicles out of RenLegion tanks. Looks good;
going to prime 'em tonight.
Since I've begun playing again, I've allowed GMS systems to be used againt
aircraft as well; haven't done so enough to determine the balance of the idea.
Consdering how few VTOL I have painted, this probably won't change anytime
soon.
> > This seems to be a consensus; I need to shift the
Nah. Slow Painter Syndrome. I don't get things painted quickly enough to get
blasé about them, unfortunately. Each one represents too damn much work. As a
result, I treasure them as though they were my own children. My own tiny,
immobile, I don't have to send them to college and can put them back in the
box when I'm done paying with them children.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Nah. Slow Painter Syndrome. I don't get things
I take the following approach to painting my Roman microarmor:
Spray 'em.
Paint 'em dark grey.
Paint on black stripes.
Paint on light grey (actually more off-white) spots.
In 2 hours, I can do a batallion.
They don't look sexy, but who cares?
> At 03:08 PM 4/4/02 -0800, you wrote:
For years now, painting has been an end to itself; it's one of my chief
ways of relaxing. Pop a book on tape into the stereo (or CD -- got Rob
Inglis reading _The Hobbit_ last night), get everything assembled, and
spend a few hours throwing paint around. While I'm more than delighted to be
gaming with the stuff again, I've gotten into the habit of being a
perfectionist.
And gaming for years with figures painted by an award-winning painter
tends to have an effect on one.
Frankly, I need to bring a bit more balance to the equation. Save the detailed
paint jobs for when they're needed. I am getting better; it only took me a
week to paint up some 80 Ogre minis last year. For me, that's speed painting.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I need to bring a bit more balance to the
I'm all in favor of detail jobs--but on 6mm tanks they
seem a bit wasted. If you got the time, you're welcome to it.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:55:25 -0500 (EST) "John Crimmins"
> <johncrim@voicenet.com> writes:
<SNIP>
> ("You can't blow up that tank! I spent an hour painting that thing!
***LOL*****
Reminds me of the party our 1970 era war game club when we finally saw a
D&D (pre-AD&D IIRC) "Munchkin of Renown" screw up and actually have his
(one year's worth of playing) "25th level" character die and no way out
of the loss - MR: "But I can clone him!" DM:"How? It's been a month
since you left your castle!" MR: "But I have a bit of his flesh back in the
castle awaiting the casting of a spell to grow a new version"
(Simulcrum?) GM: "It should have dried up by now." MR: "Oh no, I
have it preserved in Formaldehyde..." ALL: Gales of laughter... Finally
someone who was a biology major told him why we were all laughing...
Too bad it was painted so well. It deserved a better owner.
Gracias,
I like to paint to a good movie that I have seen quite a few times (Hunt for
Red October, anyone?) so I do not have to view it, only hear it.
Any pictures of your miniatures? I am still in the process of painting mine
(and I am running a game next weekend!).
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
Cygnus X1.info:
http://www.cygnusx1.info
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 11:08, Brian Bilderback wrote:
+++SNIP+++
> ...and scare the hell out of the Guys in the Wrong Uniforms.
Would that be acronym-ized as GITWU (git-woo), GitWU git-WOO or just GWU
(gwOO)?
The lattermost option reminds me Elmer Fudd saying "grew".
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:42:23 -0500, "Brian Bell" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
wrote:
> I like to paint to a good movie that I have seen quite a few times
Yeah, me too. I've gotten a lot done to Alien and Zulu, and really *bad*
movies are even better. I got a lot of work done while "Spies Like Us" was
playing last year. Unfortunately, I'm set up the basement now, and reception
is not so good. When we buy a decent VCR, I'll grab the old one for my work
area.
> Any pictures of your miniatures? I am still in the process of painting
I have some pretty awful pictures on my web site -- scanning is better
than nothing, but I need to get a digital camera. Some of the pics came out
quite nice, while others? Not so much. This one is probably the best picture:
http://www.geocities.com/johnxcrim/Graphics/GevPC.jpg
...and it was hell scanning it like that. I'm picking up my own domain name
later this year, and I want to redo the whole kit 'n kaboodle when I transfer
everything.