[DSIII]

Actually, I'd like to see a few Army books for DSIII -- similar to the
Fleet Books, with
pre-designed vehicles using the existing miniatures range.

For changes to the rules, I'd like to see some expanded command rules
(comparable
to those used in SGII), some tweakings of the point/capacity system,
and...ah...stuff.

Yes, stuff would be very good indeed.

How are the SG and DS command rules different? I haven't played SG much so am
just wondering if they are much more complicated?

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:41:02 -0800, "Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)"
> <jabradley@deloitte.com> wrote:

> How are the SG and DS command rules different? I haven't played SG

It's been ages, and ages since I last played DS2 (I'll get painting DS2
figures once I've finished painting my 25mm Phalons, and some Call of Cthulhu
figures).

The command rules in SG2 are pretty simple. Each player activates one unit at
a time, with the player with the fewest units having the choice of going first
or second. If a player has fewer units left to activate than his opponent, the
player may choose to "pass".

A unit that is activated gets to conduct two actions.

If a command unit is activated, it can do a "Transfer Action". This transfers
the command unit's action to a subordinate unit, giving the subordinate unit a
whole new activation (two actions). So, one command unit can re-activate
-- in
this way -- two units under it. This means that a platoon commander can
activate two squads.

Higher level command units can also activate units below it. A company
commander, if it's available on the table, can activate two units beneath it.
This includes the platoon command units, which can in turn activate two
squads. So, one commander can transfer an action to two platoon commanders,
and those two platoon commanders can activate a total of 4 squads.

Unless the command unit is within 6" of the unit it wants to activate, a
communication roll is needed. The command unit's quality die is rolled. The
communication roll succeeds if it is higher than the highest leadership value
(as a leader 1 is better than a leader 3) of _both_ units. If a level of
command is skipped, +1 is added to the number that must be rolled
against.

That's pretty much it. It works very well, though perhaps too well as command
units spend a lot of time hiding away somewhere (there's no incentive to risk
the command units as the best thing they can do is Transfer an Action).

I guess that would be pretty cool in DSII!!

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

I would like to see this as well.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
<<snipped>>

> Now that I think of it, getting rid of the chit damage system wouldn't

Nor me. In fact, I'd be much more likely to play it I think

G'day,

> Nor me. In fact, I'd be much more likely to play it I think

I know there's heaps of reasons to ditch it (reduce production costs, not
susceptible to losing bits, maybe faster etc etc) and I'm gonna play DS with
chits or without.... but I will admit I'll miss them. And its not just because
they make my 1s problem slightly less obvious......well nothings gonna fix it
;)

Cheers

I guess I'm with Beth. There's a lot of reasons why chits could be replaced,
but on the other side of the coin, it's a nice change and unique way to divvy
up the damage!
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

I am ambivalently in agreement too. <GRIN>

I like the chits (how do you BOOM in dice?) but most people are fixated (IMO)
on dice.

Gracias, Glenn

> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:34:22 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:

Just catching up from the weekend!

"I am ambivalently in agreement too. <GRIN>

I like the chits (how do you BOOM in dice?) but most people are fixated (IMO)
on dice.

Gracias, Glenn"

I like the chits too to a certain extant, but an alternate dice system would
be nice as well. Then I wouldn't have to worry about buying more chits when I
loose them, and the game might go a little faster as well.

> Foxx Travis wrote:

I don't mind the chits too much. However, I would miss the odd 'boom' chit,
and supposedly random "firing
systems down"/"target systems down" chits. This weekend,
however, at ECC, the UNSC would NOT have missed the "firing systems down"
chit, as that was drawn many, many times for shots they fired on the ESU. The
ESU had its fair share, but the UNSC had more than its fair share and could
have done with a few less. And this after I
had already removed some of the firing/target systems
down chits, wanting more damage chits to be potentially drawn (I guess I draw
"firing systems down" chits like
I roll low with dice ;-)

G'day,

> (I guess I draw "firing systems down" chits like

Don't solve your "ones problem" either I note;P;)

Have fun

> Indy wrote:

We had very few 'Systems Down' chit results in the Battle for Huntington game.
I use the first chit draw ONLY to determine that result, otherwise, your size
5 weapons would be significantly less reliable than your size 2 weapons.

The biggest difficulty with the chits was determining APSW results from the
MBTs to the Contitutionalist militiamen dug in the outskirts of Huntington.
Each tank had two APSWs and required three chits drawn against dug in troops
(Yellows only).

What I'd like to see:

1) Bye bye chits. (Too slow)

2) More regression to the mean in game mechanics. The greatest complaint in
our group is it is hard to know what your tank will do with any degree of
reliability because of the degree of randomness in the chit draws AND in the
opposed rolls. Since it's easy for any dice to come up with a 1, it's hard to
have predictable behaviour. Some dice conventions that generated more mean
results would make the game more intuitive.

3) Reaction fire should be a wee bit harder

4) New vehicle design system that allows more
choices such as designing modern tanks (8/2/1
armour on front/sides/rear) and representing
tradeoffs between mobility, armour, weapons etc.

5) Ability to produce a greater variety of mobility distances (classes might
be okay, but do all tanks move 12"? Or could some move 12 and some 11 or 13?)

6) Artillery toned down (combine current artillery rules with the Gods Eye
view and things on the table get smashed rather easily)

7) Bugs (KV, Phalons, SV, others)

> What I'd like to see:

Me too, though I must admit that the more I've played the faster it went. It
didn't hurt that I was umpire in the last game and pulled chits for everyone.

> 2) More regression to the mean in game

I disagree here, I like the deterministic model it represents. I like the fact
that a 100 ton super tank can still blow it's roll against the HMMV. There are
no guarantees in combat. It allows the occasional weakling to best the
goliath. The odds aren't good but it's there.

> 3) Reaction fire should be a wee bit harder

Not sure I follow this, are you saying an adjustment made for reaction fire?
Or the conditions that allow reaction fire.

> 4) New vehicle design system that allows more

Definitely agree here.

> 5) Ability to produce a greater variety of

There is already slow and fast tracked but I know what you're saying, finer
degrees of slow vs fast. Or just a flat calculation that determines the final
spd based on propulsion and weight. I would really like to see more
distinction between the types of mobility vs varied types of terrain.

> 6) Artillery toned down (combine current

Modern artillery of today is pretty darn effective and timely. Most problems
of today's artillery is coordination and quantity. Everyone wants it but
there's only so much to go around. In the far future of DS, I would imagine
artillery will be even more accurate and deadly. But the problem of not enough
when you need it will probably still be there. Wouldn't a better approach be
to limit the availability rather than the destructiveness? Plus given our
battlefield 'eyes' with today's technology, far future 'god's eye view'
doesn't bother me much. I can envision commanders viewing holotank simulations
of the action much like we see it on the table top now.

As an aside, one thing DS doesn't have is anti-artillery vehicles. I'm
not
talking about counter-battery, but weapons that can shoot shells out of
the air. Since we have a couple of real life tests by militaries going on for
just that very thing, I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine in 200 years
the capability will be there.

> 7) Bugs (KV, Phalons, SV, others)

Definitely:)

> Chuck Parrott wrote:

> > 6) Artillery toned down (combine current
Plus
> given our battlefield 'eyes' with today's technology, far future

What about just taking the ADS and expanding its role a bit?

Mk

How about each active ADS in range of the target reduces the attack by 1 die
type, D4 minimum (or drops the value of the chit draw by [again with 1 or zero
un-affected]).

Some rounds get through, but sufficient ADS will block most.

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003, Michael Brown wrote:

> How about each active ADS in range of the target reduces the attack by

    This sounds reasonable, but then I think ADS would have to be re-
costed given its new role. If the same system can take out a) aerospace, b)
VTOL, c) missiles, d) artillery (could it take out DFO's? If not, why not
(especially if it can take out artillery)?), it should cost appropriately (and
it will become a definite target).

    -Brian

In article <NGBBIHDGLAFCIONHDLINIELCCLAA.chuckparrott@earthlink.net>, Chuck
Parrott <chuckparrott@earthlink.net> writes
> 6) Artillery toned down (combine current
Plus
> given our battlefield 'eyes' with today's technology, far future 'god's

Try this from my DS5W conversion. Sounds like what you are after.

Point Defence Systems Vs. Artillery

PDS may fire at artillery shells or submunitions in addition to missiles. Any
unit within the beaten zone of an artillery strike with PDS may use it to
engage incoming rounds. The target vehicle rolls a die based on the level of
its PDS with an automatic penalty of one die type and the artillery uses a
D10. If the artillery is of higher TL than the PDS it gets a die type bonus.
If it is lower TL it gets a penalty of one die type. MRL artillery gets an
additional favourable Die shift. If the target vehicle roll exceeds the
artillery roll then the artillery shell has been shot down or sufficient
submunitions have been destroyed to negate the attack. Surrounding elements
can still be affected by the artillery if their PDS is unsuccessful in
defending them. Note that when the target of a converged sheaf, each firing
element must be intercepted separately.

Area defence Systems Vs. Artillery

ADS systems may also fire at artillery shells or submunitions in addition to
missiles. Any ADS unit within defensive range of the beaten zone of an
artillery strike may use it to engage incoming rounds targeted on other units
within that zone. The ADS system rolls a die based on the level of its PDS
with an automatic penalty of one die type, further penalised by the number of
targets it wished to protect. Again the artillery uses a D10. If the artillery
is of higher TL than the ADS it gets a die type bonus. If it is lower TL it
gets a penalty of one die type. MRL artillery gets an additional favourable
Die shift. If the ADS roll exceeds the artillery roll then the artillery shell
has been shot down or sufficient submunitions have been destroyed to negate
the attack. Note that when the target of a converged sheaf, each firing
element must be intercepted separately and counts as an additional target.

Cheers