Hello,
The easy question first:
When drawing damage chits for a weapon with "All/2" chit validity, do
you round fractions and if so which way? (Personally I'd say "don't round at
all", but I want other opinions. The authors are welcome to
chip in as well - hint, Mike! ;-) )
Then a somewhat harder one:
I know I said I didn't want to meddle too much with the parts of DSII which
aren't directly related to the design system, but, well...
Can someone explain the difference between Stealth and ECM to me? Not the
effects in game terms, I'm well aware of those, but in the PSB?
Stealth is described as: "STEALTH covers a wide variety of methods, both
physical
(radar-absorbing paint, heat-emission masking etc.) and electronic,
which render the vehicle more difficult for the enemy to see and 'acquire' as
a target."
In other words, Stealth is designed to disrupt enemy targetting systems in
general. The "electronic" Stealth systems can either be passive (eg
de-magnetizing systems like those on some of the later ex-Soviet tanks)
or active (ie, ECM) - the description doesn't say.
ECM is described as: "Systems designed to jam the guidance of incoming
Missiles."
DSII Missiles are fire-and-forget - ie. self-guiding, so there is no
link between the firer and the missile which can be disrupted by active
sensors.
What is the big difference between the guidance systems of a GMS and the
sensors of an AFV or a sensor drone which makes the systems able to fool the
AFV or drone unable to fool the missile and vice versa?
The reason I ask is this:
In the current rules, ECM works against GMSs but nothing else (should work
against MAK artillery too, though), whereas Stealth works against just about
everything except missiles and artillery. By coincidence,
level-1 Stealth gives pretty much the same protection against
direct-fire weapons as Basic ECM gives against GMSs, level-2 Stealth
corresponds very closely to the effects of Enhanced ECM, and level-3
Stealth to Superior ECM. There's no ECM equivalents to level-4 and
higher Stealth, of course - not yet, at least <g>
So... we have two complementary systems with very similar effects against
their respective "targets", and which seems to have rather similar PSB. Baking
them together into one system would make it *much*
easier to determine their proper points values :-/
Finally the hardest question of them all:
Do you have any feelings for how much high mobility is worth in DSII,
de-coupled from weapon types used etc?
That is to say, assume that two forces have identical vehicles, except
that one uses (say) Hi-Mob Wheeled and the other Fast GEV mobility.
Further assume that the two commanders are of roughly equal skill. How many
more (or less) vehicles will the Wheeled side need to have an even chance to
beat the GEVs?
I know that this is a very artificial set-up and that few people would
willingly fight such a battle... especially enough times to determine
the force levels necessary for balance :-/
Unfortunately this is one game balance aspect which is utterly impossible to
do any meaningful mathematical analysis on, which means that the only data I
have at the moment is my DSII gaming experience and that of the other
locals... I'd much prefer to have a considerably larger sample of opinions
than this, from as many people as possible
<g>
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Add them all up, them divide by 2. For 0.5 and up, round up. Alternatively,
roll a dice for 50% round up and 50% round down. Actually, I would prefer to
use my dice damage system and avoid this problem all together.
> Then a somewhat harder one:
de-magnetizing systems like those on some of the later ex-Soviet tanks)
or
active (i.e., ECM) - the description doesn't say.
In my background, DSII Stealth is advanced manufacturing, fitting more stuff
in less space. It seems to fit better that way.
> ECM is described as:
In my background, ECM is a combination of chaff, flares, smoke, laser
blinders, radar jammers, holographic imagers, directed EMP and similar systems
directed by an automatic computer system. All these designed to confuse and
deflect an incoming missile into not impacting with the target vehicle.
> DSII Missiles are fire-and-forget - i.e.. self-guiding, so there is no
In my background, I think I solve this problem.
> The reason I ask is this:
I assume that artillery MAK just overwhelms defensive system with numbers. So
ECM, PDS and Stealth have no effect versus Artillery.
> ...whereas Stealth works against just about everything except missiles
Just use Brilliant ECM, and roll a D12! :-) SMSFFD.
> So... we have two complementary systems with very similar effects
Baking them together into one system would make it *much* easier to
determine their proper points values :-/
> Finally the hardest question of them all:
Further assume that the two commanders are of roughly equal skill. How many
more (or less) vehicles will the Wheeled side need to have an even chance to
beat the GEVs?
> I know that this is a very artificial set-up and that few people would
In my opinion, about 10% roughly. So the wheeled force might need 10% more
vehicles than the GEV force.
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:25:56 +0200
we don't round.
> Then a somewhat harder one:
[according to my father who designed on missle guidance and jamming
systems]:
stealth is a passive defense with the properties you describe above. ECM is an
active system, kind of like white noise, false signals, etc. to confuse,
overload or disrupt a missle's guidance and target aquisition
system. even if it doesn't prevent a target hit (in a target-rich
environ), ECM would encourage the missle to choose a less worthy candidate.
your'e right tho, ECM seems silly to introduce in the game just for GMS.
either have it cover the other logical prospects or abstract it away. i favor
keeping it as it does differ (in my mind) from stealth. however, i have really
thought of any rules to do this yet.
> Brian Bell wrote:
> When drawing damage chits for a weapon with "All/2" chit validity, do
OK.
> Can someone explain the difference between Stealth and ECM to >>me?
Not the effects in game terms, I'm well aware of those, but in the
> PSB?
Hm. What exactly are those electronic parts of the Stealth systems mentioned
in the description?
> ECM I had seen as EMP projectors, IFF spoofing, hologram projection,
Good points. Question: what's the difference between shooting the missile down
with a fragmenting charge (PDS) or an EMP pulse (which you include in ECM
instead)? If you can have both of these, why can't you have two PDS systems
instead?
> The difference in game play could be explained by the extreemly short
This explains why ECM doesn't degrade AFV FCSs, but it doesn't explain why
Stealth does *not* degrade GMS guidance circuits. Shouldn't the GMS operator
be about as easily fooled by Stealth as the MDC gunner is?
> The arguement against this is that Stealth is lost when a "Target
Pretty impressive crews who are able to re-paint their AFV in a few
minutes during a firefight <g>
> Finally the hardest question of them all:
> [Bri] A lot of this depends on the terrain and the players.
[snip long text]
A shorter form of this answer seems to be "Sorry, I don't".
I'm sorry, Brian, but this was exactly the sort of answer I was NOT looking
for. I already know that "it depends"; what I asked for was outside opinions
(ie, outside the local group) on HOW MUCH it depends. Hard numbers, not basic
tactical papers I learned by heart years ago.
Thanks anyway,
Andrew Martin
> Can someone explain the difference between Stealth and ECM to >>me?
Not the effects in game terms, I'm well aware of those, but in the
> PSB?
So with a design system which handles the "more stuff in less space"
explicitly your background would have no place for Stealth?
> ECM is described as:
Hm. What's the difference between this and PDS? That is, what is the big
conceptual difference between having a system with a sensor which detects
incoming missiles and a grenade launcher firing a smoke grenade into the
missile's path or a small laser which blinds the missile's optics on one hand,
and having a system with a sensor which detects incoming missiles and a
fragmentation charge which throws shrapnel into the missile's pagh or a small
gun which puts a bullet through the missile's optics on the other?
> What is the big difference between the guidance systems of a GMS
That's nice. Would you like to tell us *how*? <g>
After all, smoke, radar jammers and holographics (all ECM) would most likely
have a certain detrimental effect on AFV targetting systems as well as on
missiles; similarly a low profile (stealth) would make the vehicle harder for
the missile crews to detect and engage.
(BTW, isn't smoke its own system in DSII rather than part of the ECM?)
> In the current rules, ECM works against GMSs but nothing else
IMO that's a very weak assumption, and that's in spite of my being biased in
favour of the artillery... Even with cluster munitions you'd
need WW1-style massed artillery batteries to throw enough dumb rounds
into an area; for MAK to have the effects it has in the game, each
sublet needs to be able to aim itself at a target - and the sensors of
a sublet is nowhere near as powerful as those of a GMS, let alone an AFV, so
anything which can fool those systems will degrade the sublets quite
measurably.
> Finally the hardest question of them all:
[snip rest of example]
> In my opinion, about 10% roughly. So the wheeled force might need >10%
OK. Any opinions about other mobility combinations? :-)
Thanks for the input,
> David Reeves wrote:
> The easy question first:
That makes it five votes for no rounding and none against :-)
> Can someone explain the difference between Stealth and ECM to >>me?
Not the effects in game terms, I'm well aware of those, but in the
> PSB?
That's what it ought to be, though I'm not entirely certain what the
electronics mentioned in the quote above are supposed to do :-/
> ECM is an active system, kind of like white noise, false signals, etc.
to
> confuse, overload or disrupt a missle's guidance and target aquisition
The "less worthy candidate" preferrably being an empty patch of dirt, rock or
something else you don't mind having blown up <g>
In extreme cases (EMP pulses, including radar - though ships are better
equipped to do this than tanks <g>) "ECM" systems could even destroy a missile
before it hits, but this could equally well fall into the PDS category.
Indeed, depending on what you mean with a "weapon" the PDS
description "Sophisticated sensor suites linked to fast-reaction
weapons, used for defence against incoming missiles" could include chaff and
flare grenade launchers as well as fragmentation charges, rockets or cannon.
All the existing jamming systems I know anything about concentrate on the link
between the launch platform and the missile, with some working
against wire-guided missiles but not against beam riders and vice
versa... are there any jammers which work against Javelin (without fooling the
firer)? If there is one, I'd be *very* interested to know
how it works ;-) (...and whoever tells me any accurate data is probably
revealing rather sensitive secrets, too <g>)
> your'e right tho, ECM seems silly to introduce in the game just for
i
> favor keeping it as it does differ (in my mind) from stealth.
however, i
> have really thought of any rules to do this yet.
At the moment ECM differs from Stealth but is very similar to PDS... Ah well.
Thanks for the input,
> That makes it five votes for no rounding and none against :-)
Add them all together, divide by two, and round up.
.....
Yeah, as it happens, I do have a fair number of DFFG's, why do
you ask? :-)
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
explicitly your background would have no place for Stealth?
Kind of. If "more stuff in less space" is handled explicitly, and a better
option for stealth is presented, that would be nicer.
For Stealth, my opinion is that it should work against main weapon FC,
_and_
GMS. Not like it is currently, only working against FC. Stealth should be
something like an extra defensive dice, like ECM and PDS.
> >In my background, ECM is a combination of chaff, flares, smoke, laser
In my background, I have ECM as being more area effect than directional as
PDS. The ECM emissions are all over the place and produce a bigger target for
the GMS. PDS directly destroys the incoming GMS (and maybe IAVRs too) or tries
to. APFCs are there to hinder enemy infantry, and so cause them not launch
IAVRs accurately. I would have Active armour as another armour option
to degrade the effectiveness of the GMS/IAVR warhead, after it hits.
So "grenade launcher firing a smoke grenade into the missile's path" this is
like PDS in only firing one grenade. A good GMS design would ignore the smoke
grenade as it's only a sudden obscurement, and there's various other emissions
the GMS could home in on. A ECM variant of this would spit several grenades
out, much like a rapid smoke screen use. Basically, ECM and PDS could be
treated the same. I have PDS as directly destroying the GMS, while ECM diverts
the GMS to more "attractive" targets. For Laser designated and wire guided GMS
in my rules, I have these ignoring ECM as the human controller isn't fooled by
the ECM. But PDS still works just as well. One could conceivably have armoured
GMS, this would degrade or ignore PDS, but ECM would still work.
> What is the big difference between the guidance systems of a GMS and
> >In my background, I think I solve this problem.
> That's nice. Would you like to tell us *how*? <g>
I'll try! :-)
> After all, smoke, radar jammers and holographics (all ECM) would most
I'm thinking of things like flares being ejected from planes in combat. From
the missile's perspective of hunting down warm engines and the hole in the
background UV/IR, these flares are intended to be more attractive to the
missile's _limited_ point of view.
The GMS hasn't got access to the battlefield overview that all soldiers and
vehicles have. The combination of defences like flares, limited smoke
deployment, holographic imagers and radar jammers all work best near the
target vehicle. But these emissions can be tracked and used to help with Fire
control solutions, particularly when coupled with the battlefield overview
that's available.
> (BTW, isn't smoke its own system in DSII rather than part of the ECM?)
That's right. But the DSII smoke takes the place of a firing action. I
interpret this to mean that it's quite thick and dense and long lasting.
> >I assume that artillery MAK just overwhelms defensive system with
It does seem weak. Here's my excuse! :-) I figure that the artillery
vehicles have access to the battlefield overview, and the MAK shells get
updated targeting information as they're fired down the barrel. So they know
where the vehicle/s were just a few seconds ago and which direction and
speed they were going in. So they know that the vehicle must be where it is,
and so no attractive alternative is acceptable, so ECM fails, there's enough
of them coming in so that the PDS overloads after shooting down 4 or 5, and
APFC detects no enemy infantry, so it doesn't go off.
> >In my opinion, about 10% roughly. So the wheeled force might need >10
Hmmm, I think that walker 'mech mobility and the stealth penalty is too high.
That'll make the B'Tech people happier.
> Thanks for the input,
Glad to help! Feel free to trash my ideas, so I can make better ones!
:-)
You answered your own question. ECM is designed to spoof the missile into
missing. PDS is designed to destroy the missile before it can hit.
> At 06:48 AM 5/15/00 -0400, Brian Bell wrote:
Yes, but he was asking about the conceptual difference -- something
like, "what's the difference in the results whether you use one system or the
other?" To which there isn't really, though I guess both may have been
included since 1) both exist and 2) if you have both, you get and extra die
(I'm assuming here, though, not checking the rules... and there are cases
where the extra die won't help, anyway, if it's too small).
In message <3.0.5.32.20000515074511.007c4430@mail.HICom.net> Aaron Teske
writes:
> At 06:48 AM 5/15/00 -0400, Brian Bell wrote:
To be "theological" about it (I'm not JMT or Mike and I don't speak for
them... if anybody cares that much we could, uh, ask them) the difference is
in the "colour" of the rules. Shooting down and spoofing missiles just "feels"
different. They provoke different mental images, even if the effect is the
same.
Point defence goes "dakka-dakka-dakka" and that's enough
conceptual difference for me. I think the game would suffer if
we generalised these rules as "anti-missile environment" or
somesuch.
I note that (IIRC) in DS1 the effect of point-defence degraded
with each missile thrown at it in a single salvo, so that PD could be
overwhelmed.