***
That's one example of why VTOL's may be used. Does it answer any questions, or
just raise more?
***
As with all good posts, a little of both. ;->=
However, it does seem you use mostly 'specialized' VTOL's, albeit ones that
find transiting to orbit as easy as landing, as opposed to
Jacks-of-all-trades.
I suppose that, in my scenario mechanics, the costs would favor
specialized, drop-and-pickup, 'round trip' landers and somewhat more
generalized, 'one-way' drop ships, which would require retrieval
vehicles, though I'd think anything that tries to do it all well should be as
expensive as petrol is becoming.
I'd like to make VERY expensive even the one-ways that can, a) drop a
platoon or tank, b) follow that them in, giving ground support, and STILL c)
strike fear into a fighter pilot's heart.
Well, I'm really trying to make canned scenarios ala Winchell (did I really
call him Walter??? *blush*), so I can make available forces as I chose.
;->
=
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> On May 4 , devans@uneb.edu wrote:
Always glad to help....
> However, it does seem you use mostly 'specialized' VTOL's, albeit
Quite true. I tend to think that the truly general-purpose
combat vehicle is impossible. It is worth noting, though, that my
VTOL designs are all based on a few basic templates. The Falcon-A is
the basic gunship, with the Falcon-C as the command variant and the
Falcon-E as the engineering variant.
> I suppose that, in my scenario mechanics, the costs would favor
Agreed. I have some problems with the way VTOLs are designed in DSII
currently, but it mostly has to do with my wanting to be able to put in
Artillery.... My forces will, and I can almost guarantee this, lose to a
conventional opponent of equal DSII points cost commanded by an equally good
tactician. They will, however, win against an opponent who a) has few, if any,
AA assets, b) has little in the way of advanced technology (basic systems
mostly, a few enhanced), and c)
is unable to concentrate as effectively as a VTOL-based force (which
are, in my own universe, the intended opponents of this task force).
Essentially, if you put my VTOL artillery against opponents using direct fire,
they will be destroyed. If you put the APCs (in low mode) against MBTs, they
will burn. If the gunships loiter around in low mode for too long, same
notation. The force works well, but any individual component, if used for
something it's not intended to do, is vulnerable. Also, my VTOLs are not
fighters. My task force includes aerospace fighters, but they are not the
VTOLs.
> I'd like to make VERY expensive even the one-ways that can, a) drop
Agreed. My APC VTOLs could carry a size-2 vehicle instead of the
infantry, but they have (I think) a size-1 HEL and a GMS/L (and the
free APSW) as the rest of their armament. My artillery VTOLs only have the
free APSW. The gunships (size 3) can only carry their guns, and the command
VTOL has almost NO armament. NONE of them can stand
up very well to aerospace assets -- that's what the DDVs attached to
the task force are for (well, their fighters).
In a way, this reminds me of a passage from the _Aliens Colonial
Marines Technical Manual_ (highly recommended, btw) about the
Cheyenne dropships there, to the effect of "If you go up against a
fighter, you will burn. Same for good AA assets. You're a rocket/APC,
not a fighter/gunship/APC/rocket/spacefighter." That's roughly what
I'm trying for too....