Specifically, riverine patrol craft. I've been acquiring a collection of GHQ
Vietnam riverine craft over the past few months (still have some ATCs sitting
around to pick up after the con). Not going to have time to play with 'em
before I go, but it's on the list of 'things to do someday'.
But I'm running into problems with designing them.
Take the 'Swift' boats. Typical mid-size craft. A twin .50 cal, and a
.50cal/81mm mortar in an over-under configuration. No problem:
3xAPSW, 1xLight Artillery (direct fire only). Two of the APSWs are linked and
may only fire at the same target, the other must target a stand in the burst
radius of the 81mm if the 81mm also fires.
8 capacity points with three rounds for the 81mm counted in free.
Size 2.
Here's the catch--a Swift boat is considerably larger than, say, an M-1
Abrams. In fact, it's almost exactally twice as long, and the cabin which
takes up about 40% of the length is taller than the Abrams's turret. Given a
size 3 or 4 Abrams (I use 'em as Size 4 in the Georgian Orbats, YMMV), and a
definitely Size 4 Basil II (I use the mini on the
front cover of Dirtside), the _smallest_ I'd feel comfortable classing a
Swift boat as is Size 5. Probably no more than armor 1 or 2, but still size 5.
Let's go to the numbers. Size 2 10 Armor 1 2 CFE 2 Boat 1 2xAPSW 8 1xLt Art 20
Total 43 points if I build it as size class two, which fits all the weapons.
Size 5 25 Armor 1 5 CFE 5 Boat 2.5 2xAPSW 8 1xLt Art 20 Total 85.5 if I build
it as size class 5, which is where it all fits.
Now, my thought is that if we are going to encourage historically
accurate riverine craft (reason for historical accuracy: on a high-tech
planet, they'll build GEV tanks instead and screw the riverine craft) we'll
want to encourage people to remember that boats are built for
longer-term accomodation than tanks, are built in a more open, less
compact style than tanks, and hence larger. They are also are also
cheaper--this makes up for the fact that they are easy targets and are
restricted to waterways.
Some thoughts on costing this point _decrease_. How about reducing
total price for our Swift boat by 10 points per level bought? This gives us 13
point Swift boats if you originally build them as size 2. This doesn't sound
right. Too cheap. Maybe you build them as size 5,
but since you put no more than a size-class 2's worth of weapons on
them, they get that 10 points per size level difference off the pice of the
size 5 boats. Hence a 55.5 point Swift boat? You can also only buy armor as
per the level of the size class you're basing the weapon fit on, not the
actual size class.
This is a real rough bunch of ideas, feel free to shred it to bits with
dazzling calculations of statistics.
> At 11:12 AM -0800 2/25/99, John M. Atkinson wrote:
Cool!Small craft actions are a personal favorite of mine. Have fun, and if you
and the mini's ever get to San Francisco, drop me a line!
> Here's the catch--a Swift boat is considerably larger than, say, an M-1
As I read all of this, the disparity that concerns you is that the
game-relevant equipment makes the Swift a size 2 and using real-world
measurements it comes out as size 5. (correct me if I'm misreading this).
I see two easy options:
1. Build it as a size 2 vehicle that takes up extra space to transport.
2. Call it a size 5 that has unused space.
The hard way is to write more detailed rules for designing riverine craft in
DSII. Since they have to worry about bouyancy and (for the Swift) crew
accomodations, we can assume some of the 'missing' or 'wasted' space (the
diff. between size 2 and 5) we just have to account for the difference. DSII
is all about the combat stats, so I think roughly doubling the Size to produce
the efefctive Size for transport purposes (only other place I can think it'd
make a diference) would
work. Anybody who did brown-water work or served in an amphib unit,
please feel free to correct based on experience. Personally I favor option 1
above
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my total is 65.5 points.
The size 2 example is an over armed APC swimming a river.
> [About riverine craft]
Long term accomodation for 4-5 crew members: +8 capacity
Extra ammunition for mortar, 4 @ +2 capacity per shot: +8 capacity
Total (with weapons): 24 capacity
Or, assuming there is space for a boarding party:
Long term accomodation for 4-5 crew members: +8 capacity
Long term accomodation for 4-5 man boarding party: +12 capacity
Total (with weapons): 28 capacity
"Long term accomodation" means accomodation suited for about one day. Which is
a longer time than an APC is suitable for. I'm assuming that long term
accomodation costs 3 * normal infantry team capacity (+12), 2* team
capacity
for crew (+8).
For a general method, design the vehicle as a normal DSII vehicle, like your
first example for the size two design. The limits of "maximum weapon size is
one larger than vehicle size class" and "number of weapons is limited to size
class" are tossed out. In exchange, the vehicle gets long term endurance, say,
a couple of days. It has a signature equivalent to oversize vehicles, so it's
automatically hit if an opposing weapon is within range. Weapons with fire
controls can fire independently as per the oversize vehicles rules. The
vehicle is assumed to be immune to small arms fire. Assume an overall armour
of 1 all around. If you want a higher value of armour, pay points for it,
based on the size class required to fit all the weapons. The only points cost
is the weapons mounted in the vehicle and any armour in excess of one. I'm
assuming that the large size and inefficient construction balances out the
long term endurance for points cost.
Hope that helps! :-)
> This is a real rough bunch of ideas, feel free to shred it to bits with
Why not just buy reverse stealth. Say for a savings of x points it counts
as signature+x. Can only be bought up to double its actuall signature
or similar. Also if I am thinking of the same boat they had an awfull lot of
storage space on board. No use in wasting space. Just count it as cargo for
troops/supplies. Pricing the savings would take some play-testing to
get it right.
Take Care
That Chuk Guy
P.S. being in the military, well allright the AF. It is close to the military.
Things are starting to improve as far as pay and benfits. Remember when all
else fails carpet bomb.