New Binary propellant engines now field testing promise to extend missile
ranges by at least 200%. Also, the Army is field testing a
vertical launch "clip-on" missile system that would attach itself to
an MBT turret with a variety of anti-air and anti-armor(top attack)
munitions. The only thing you need is a rotating sensor array similar to the
Apache TADS system, but smaller, attached to the roof... The Army wants to
make itself more "self escorting" so that in future conflicts armored groups
will better be able to make follow on assaults and seize the initiative on the
battlefield without as much reliance on air and artillery support. Also, the
GE MBT Railgun system is being tested now with a reported muzzle velocity of
5000
fps...
> Ludo Toen wrote:
Because GMS systems are _guided_ weapons there is no fire arc limitation
and can fire all round (360°). The low capacity is because they are usually
externally mounted (a bit like TOW systems).
> In the section on GMS (p9) they do state that multiple systems on one
> What do you think? Mike?
On p.18 it states "...any element may only fire ONE weapon system per Combat
Action.". This includes GMS systems. The reference on p.9 is to the fact that
multiple GMSs may be fired as if they were one weapon system.
> Ludo
> You wrote:
Sorry for delay in replying, I am only to pick up my email once every week or
so.
> 1. What is the reasoning behind only allowing 1 weapon to be fired at
See p.18 "..any element may only fire one weapon system per Combat Action."
Thats any element not just tanks. Multiple barrels of the same weapon type
count as one weapon system.
> a) If only one weapons is allowed to be fired at a time, why have
Different weapons are more effective against different target types. Generally
speaking though, you would normally only have one big gun on an AFV for the
reasons you state. The exception would be multiple barrels of the same type. A
typical tank would have a big gun, one or more APSWs,
maybe a PDS system, perhaps a LAD and possibly a GMS/L.
> b) Since weapons can not be individually knocked out why have
See above. One main weapon per vehicle is the best way with the smaller
weapons as additionals (think WW2/modern tanks and you get the idea).
> c) **Don't take this too seriously** could you not mount a Mech torso
Well, if you really want to, we aren't going to stop you....
> 2. The rules mention "Backup Sytems" to give you a better chance of
See p.52. Backup Systems add 30% to cost of all vehicle systems (i.e. FIRECON,
ECM, STEALTH and GUIDANCE as applicable.
> 3. If you have more than 1 APSW mounted on a vehicle how is this
Its one _weapon system_ per combat action (not one weapon). Multiple
APSWs count as "multiple barrels" of the same weapon system.
> These are some questions we have, we will send more in the future if
As with all our rules, if you don't agree with any of the above, then fine
- its _your_ game!!
> Thanks
> M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote:
Looking at modern day missiles this isn't very realistic. First the missile
needs to lock onto its target, which is difficult when looking the other way.
You may argue that the target data could be downloaded to the missile but this
brings us to my other point: missile propulsion. The rocket motor on all but
the biggest missiles (ICBM size) have solid powder engines. These burn up in
just a few seconds, the missile continues by pure inertia. Tight turns use up
way too much energy and the missiles' control surfaces are too small to force
such tight turns.
For those who have seen pictures of TOW or the like flying to its target with
what seems to be an exhaust, sorry its a tracer to allow the operator to see
the missile's flight path.
(EOD mode off)
> M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote:
Fun for the whole family:
Dirtside II Vehicle: Monitor Anti-Personnel AFV
By: Alexander Williams
Type: Anti-Personnel
Desc: The Monitor is a low-slung, heavy vehicle dedicated to the support
of Armoured Infantry. Its weapons compliment is fairly effective against both
light armoured vehicles and infantry, armoured and unarmoured.
Equipment Item VSP : BVP Spaces Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 4 20 : 0 20 20
Armor class 2, Reactive 20 : 30 20 30
Chemical Fuelled Engine 20 : 30 20 36
Hi-mobility wheeled 20 : 30 20 45
3 class 2 RFAC's in Full traverse turret 20 : 30 6 75
with Enhanced fire control 20 : 30 6 83
1 APSW 20 : 30 6 83
Basic ECM 20 : 30 6 98
Certainly not a tank, but a tri-barreled RFAC can chew up infantry at
close range and lightly armoured vehicles at long quite effectively.
In message <0121173329-Re: DSII Questions* @MHS>
> M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk writes:
> >a) If only one weapons is allowed to be fired at a time, why have
...because some miniatures carry multiple weapons?
While DS fits OK with the Copelands range (I'm not a big fan of CMD
tanks, I find the vehicles to be a bit large for 1/300) it's a generic
game for whatever minis you have to hand. There is no common standard for SF
minis, no history to follow.
If the mini has multiple different weapons, then you need rules for that. DS
delivers.
> On 21 Jan 1997 M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote:
> Different weapons are more effective against different target types.
> maybe a PDS system, perhaps a LAD and possibly a GMS/L.
But if I have multiple APSWs, I still have to fire all of them as one weapon
against a single infantry stand, no?
No, the APSWs on a vehicle may target different infantry stands.
MIke Elliott, GZG
______________________________ Reply Separator
On 17 Feb 1997 M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote, in reply to my question:
> But if I have multiple APSWs, I still have to fire all of them as one
> weapon against a single infantry stand, no?
> No, the APSWs on a vehicle may target different infantry stands.
Does it say so anywhere in the rules? _I_ know you wrote the rules, but
it'll be much easier to convince my opponents if I can point at the
paragraf...
> But if I have multiple APSWs, I still have to fire all of them as
> it'll be much easier to convince my opponents if I can point at the
This question a candidate for a DS2 FAQ/Errata sheet? :-}
Mk
I was reading through the rules to refresh my memory in preparation for a game
next week & wanted to get the list's consensus on some questions:
1) Does a System Down affect APSWs on a vehicle? I'd say no, since you don't
need a FireCon for multiple APSWs, therefore they aren't controled by the
systems that are down.
2) Does repairing a System Down take an activation? The rules say "during any
activation", not "as an activiation".
3) Since in normal direct fire combat, infantry can fire IAVRs automatically,
how does the check for fire effectiveness in an infantry firefight affect
infantry firing IAVRs at supporting vehicles? Do the IAVR firing stands
automatically fire & the fire effectiveness roll only affect the remaining
stands? Are they included in the affect of the roll?
4) If the defender in a close assault voluntarily withdraws, do he still have
to take a Confidence Test? I'm guessing that he does, since the troops could
loose morale by retreating.
5) Just for clarification, if either side in a close assault reached 50%
casualties, they have to take a Confidence Test both at the moment of crossing
50% & again at the end of the current round of combat to see if they break,
correct? I'd say yes, since the break test at the end of the round is for a
different reason than the 50% casualty test.
6) Again for clarification, if 2 units are combining their activation for a
close assault, and one of them fails the initial charge Reaction Test, does
this count as a "fall back" for the second get the +1 to all subsequent
Threat checks? I'd say no, since the failed unit never moved forward to allow
it to fall back.
7) Is there any detrement for Engineers being Under Fire while trying to
clear a mine field, other than the +1 Reaction Test for moving? I'd say
no, since that's the whole point of their job, to perform engineering tasks
under fire. On the other hand, I know that the Under Fire rules say that the
test is made for any movement, but I'd think a unit that's been trained to
work under fire wouldn't need to check to move from a very dangerous position
(clearing mines in open ground) to a more secure position (under cover of it's
vehicles).
Thanks in advance,
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
> 1) Does a System Down affect APSWs on a vehicle? I'd say no, since
Even the tanks that have the top of the turret mounted APSW's power controled
typically have manual traverse so you can use the weapon when the vehicle is
shut down.
> 2) Does repairing a System Down take an activation? The rules say
The repair is the firing action. Id say they can still drive to cover or
something, if thats how it reads.
> 3) Since in normal direct fire combat, infantry can fire IAVRs
Presumable they fire the iavr's. A tank is a much less numerous and larger
target.
> 4) If the defender in a close assault voluntarily withdraws, do he
I'd have to read the rules on that one.
> 6) Again for clarification, if 2 units are combining their activation
You can call the charge if you wish at that point. Its not a fall back, its a
failure to charge a held position
> 7) Is there any detrement for Engineers being Under Fire while trying
I don't know about this one. My knowledge of real life and assaulting cleared
positions indicates that people should be wary of receving fire while clearing
a mine field. But then those folks are usually better equipped with
specialized hardware. So I'd guess they don't have a penalty. Don't let them
get killed. Lay smoke on the position and
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
> I was reading through the rules to refresh my memory in preparation
i don't suppose anyone (Laserlight) wants to get Mr Atkinson's opinion on
this matter? :-)
tom
> i don't suppose anyone (Laserlight) wants to get Mr Atkinson's opinion
John's opinion will probably be "why don't you use armor, artillery,
and/or
infantry to protect the valuable engineers from being under fire in the first
place, you twerps, don't you know who's important around here?" but I have
forwarded it to him. He has rules on clearing obstacles on his page
www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/index.html or thereabouts. Since I
haven't
ever actually played SG or DS2, I don't recall what he says--go see for
yourself.
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Laserlight wrote:
> John's opinion will probably be "why don't you use armor, artillery,
but I
> have forwarded it to him. He has rules on clearing obstacles on his
Just like the FM's say. I can't remember the number of the particular FM
but it goes over all the stuff that John's page covers.
> www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/index.html or thereabouts. Since I
Whee, Nice page... Abatis and Log Cribs and Mine Belts, Oh My!
I'd like to see points costs for the obstacles/barriers.
> "Combat Engineers are Walking Gods" Atkinson is, as you might expect,
They are until the enemy artillery splashes a mission in on their ass during a
hasty breach and counter battery can't reach the Red Force Red Legs...
I must get the size 5 AARV and CRV painted and photographed for people.
[quoted original message omitted]