Yes, I know, DS is already FMA. I'm talking about dropping chits and going to
a SG style of fire resolution. Here are the initial ideas, probably
paraphrased out of SG with minor mods.
The attacker rolls 2 dice, one based on Fire control and range, the other
based on crew quality.
Close Medium Long
Hand aimed d4 -- --
Basic d8 d6 d4
Advanced d10 d8 d6
Superior d12 d10 d8
The defender rolls one die based on signature:
1 d12
2 d10
3 d8
4 d6
5+ d4
The die class may be modified, it can never be
more than d12 or less than d4, this is _not_ an
open shift.
Hull down +1 DC
Turret down +2 DC
Evading +1 DC
Popup +2 DC
Infantry in +2 DC
soft cover
Results:
If defender beats attacker no affect If one attack die beats defenders die
minor hit
If both attack dice beats defenders die major hit
Minor Hit, Roll Weapon size in appropriate die type and total. Roll Armour
level in d12's and total.
Major Hit, Roll 2XWeapon size in appropriate die type and total.
Do a comparision as in SG.
One thing I still need is a chart. I'm assuming all weapons do d12 in close
range (works in nicely with SG) and drop die types depending on the weapon.
Thoughts?
> At 04:46 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Roger Books wrote:
[snip]
Brian Bell has already the conversion - here's the URL:
http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/techlib/ds2fma.asp
I posted a request about a week ago for playtesting feedback on his set and
got no response. As soon as I get less busy, Lonnie & I are going to run a few
games using Brian's mods and try them out ourselves.
> On 24-Sep-01 at 16:59, -MWS- (mshurtleff1@qwest.net) wrote:
I looked through his mods and, while they look like they will work, have a
different feel than the SG system. He is attempting to duplicate the chit draw
with dice. I don't feel that is any more realistic, and certainly more
complicated that the SG method.
It looks to me that with a little effort DS can be given much of the same
"look and feel" of SG without damaging the system. Brians mods are DS with
Dice. I'm looking for SG in another scale, much as the playtest of FMA felt
like SG in a bit different scale.
> At 05:09 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Roger Books wrote:
Ahhhh, gotcha! Since what I was looking for *was* "Dirtside with Dice", it
sounds like Brian's mods are just the ticket for us. Thanks for the feedback!
I agree wholeheartedly with Roger. Brian's system doesn't match SG. I was just
beginning to do what Roger is doing, but I'll wait and see how his comes out.
The way I figure it, SG and DS can both use VERY similar rules, with
differences reflecting groundscale and less firefight detail for DS. Eric
The Gearhead Page
http://members.home.net/mruseless
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT d++(--) S+:- a33>20 c+++ U-- P L E? W++ o- K w>++ O M+@ !V PS+ PE++
Y+
PGP t+ !5 X++ R+++ tv- b+ DI+ D++ G++ e+++ h--- r+++ y+++>$
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> -----Original Message-----
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@jumpspace.net> writes:
<snip>
> I looked through his mods and, while they look like they will work,
Never happy? <grin>
Roger, if Jon goes to a "SG" feel for DS2 I will ignore it and play with
either the chits (which i have no problem with) or the (if I develop a
dislike for the chits) posted mods/dice method by Brian. I don't think
I want DS2 (company sized battle) to feel like a skirmish. Neither do I have a
wild desire to see either game gutted to look like or be compatible with the
other. Maybe because I don't play SG2 and maybe because I like the way DS2
works. And maybe because I hate change without what I perceive (yes it is
subjective) to be a need. I get enough of that at work (like some Grunt wants
a laptop filled with a
non-existant G.I.S. over a map in a fox hole.) To me it isn't broken so
it shouldn't be 'fixed'!
But I won't suggest you stop trying. Maybe you'll finally be happy. <grin>
Gracias,
> At 05:09 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Roger Books wrote:
<snip>
> I looked through his mods and, while they look like they will work,
"Realism" in a science Fiction game with non-existent technologies (in
most cases) and occurring a whole bunch of years in the future is an
interesting concept. Almost as interesting as painting lace collars on my 6mm
figures. Realistic feeling results (No Class 5 kills with APSW's
- no close assault by 'normal' infantry using melee weapons resulting in
AFV destruction - no 'super characters' decimating whole platoons of
enemies by standing on a parapet and firing belts of ammunition for long
periods and never being hit by the platoon's return fire) in the game is a
definite "yes" but I am unsure what you are referring to as unrealistic... The
Boom chit? "Hits" that result in no effect on a target? Something else?
As for more complicated, drawing a chit or opposed dice rolls, neither are
exactly major time eaters. Performing advanced Calculus using chalk on a board
to figure combat results, now that would be a time eater and way more
complicated.
Gracias,
> Roger, if Jon goes to a "SG" feel for DS2 I will ignore it and play
Not the intent.
> Neither do I
That's exactly what I want...
> Maybe because I don't play SG2 and maybe
I'm just the opposite. I love the way SG2 works, and want DS2 to work in the
same vein. I play both, and I find that the game mechanics are often
"opposite" between the two games. I end up having to look up the rules much
more often that I would like.
> And maybe because I hate change
Then play it the way it was written:) I would like to "fix" it to match my
style and preference Cheers
HI Roger!
I just recieved your request today. I have sent you an individual reply,
but I will also post it here.
As for the dice system... To put it mildly the vehicle to vehicle combat in
SG2 stinks. 1) All weapons have the same range. 2) Base Die Roll x Size gives
too wide a range of results. 3) If you use the xDice added method, you have to
have at least 5 sets of the dice for each player. 4) Either multiplying or
adding slows down the game and looses the wonderful aspect of FMA where what
you see on the dice is your result. This was the main complaint against chits,
that they slowed down the game (the 2nd was what happened when you lost
chits). 5) The infantry fire against vehicles is too powerful.
I left the to-hit method the same as in Dirtside II. I only changed
the damage resolution (chit draw).
I needed to represent the power of the weapon and the variable effectiveness
over the given ranges. I prefered to do it on 2 dice without modifying the
result shown on the dice (add or multiply). DS2 already had 5 sizes for the
the weapons, so it was a no brainer to assign die types to them. The chit
validity was a little harder
There are 7 color combinations (All x2, All, Red & Yellow, All /2,
Red, Yellow, or Green) Of these, 2 (Yellow and Green) had the exact same count
and mix of chits, so I combined them. So I was down to 6 and needed to reduce
it to 5. After consideration, I decided that
All/2 was roughly equivilent to Red & Yellow. So now I had the 2
dice for the attacker. Armor is already divided into 5, so the same die types
that were assigned to weapon size were assigned to the Armor values.
The result is as quick as any system that I have seen.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 24-Sep-01 at 20:18, Brian Bell (bbell1@insight.rr.com) wrote:
That is due to scale. If we assume all weapons maximize in close range (d12)
then the ranges in SG fall into line. This does not mean they do the same
damage at longer ranger, although...
This is something that has bothered me in many of the large scale games I have
played. A HKP out to the horizon is not going to lose significant velocity (or
is it?). If it hits it will do the same damage as it does up close.
That aside, to keep the feel the same I'm lowering damage by range brackets as
normal DS. Different weapons will drop die types to fit the current chit
system.
> 2) Base Die Roll x Size gives too wide a range of results.
If you mean a lowley HKP/1 can kill an armour 5 tank on a
lucky shot you are correct. If you mean the statitics are bad I'll have to
disagree.
> 3) If you use the xDice added method, you have to have at least 5
What, 5 of each is a big deal? You must not play RPGs.:)
> 4) Either multiplying or adding slows down the game and looses the
Hmmm, good point. How about roll X for armour take the highest? Roll X for
weapon take the Highest?
> 5) The infantry fire against vehicles is too powerful.
I felt the reverse. I always here a tank commanders worst nightmare is being
surrounded by enemy infantry. In SG scale you are
surrounded. In DS scale it should be different and 4" range on
an IAVR accomplishes this.
Anyway, I'm not working on a system that is "better" than yours. It probably
isn't "better" t han the chit draw system. What
I am working toward is a system that is argueably as good _and_
consistant with SG so the people I know w ho have played SG can start out
feeling comfortable with DS.
Okay, I can do that. Similar is good, match depends on what is matched.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:39:02 -0600 "mrUseless" <mruseless@home.com>
writes:
> I agree wholeheartedly with Roger. Brian's system doesn't match SG.
> Roger Books wrote:
> This is something that has bothered me in many of the large scale
Unless you're fighting in vacuum, a HKP or MDC out to the horizon will most
certainly lose a significant fraction of its muzzle velocity before it
hits. Air resistance is *not* negligible for hyper-velocity rounds.
Later,
Great explanation of your logic in designing the mod's - I was wondering
about some of the reasoning on a few items (All/2 = Red and Yellow for
example.) Makes things a lot clearer in intent and design aspects.
Chits are not perfect but this method might win my grudging acceptance
(I
still am miffed at Andrew Jackson if that tells you anything about a certain
streak of stubbornness running in my family...)
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:12:28 -0400 "Brian Bell" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
writes:
> HI Roger!
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:53:51 -0600 "mrUseless" <mruseless@home.com>
writes:
> Roger, if Jon goes to a "SG" feel for DS2 I will ignore it and play
Hoped that was true.
> Neither do I
Well, then you shall press GZG to do so and I shall press him not to do so.
And that's as it should be.
> Maybe because I don't play SG2 and maybe
Well we have completely incompatible 'goals' it seems. Que sera, sera. Now I
agree it would be nice to have an index! So much time in the rule books in
part and parcel of playing more then one rule set <grin> but I understand your
feeling. I used yo have those kind of ideas... when I was young. <grin>
Seriously, I find the DS2 rules '...just fine for me...' but again our
different uses and interests put us on opposite ends of the question.
> And maybe because I hate change
And I will. And you should definitely follow GZG's dictum and change what
doesn't satisfy you.
> I would like to "fix" it to match my style and preference
The do so, by all means. And let us know how it works out (AAR's and such)
please.
I wish you well in your endeavors (just as long as it doesn't convince GZG to
change a "perfectly good game" that is.) <VBG>
Gracias,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@jumpspace.net> writes:
<snip technical debate stuff>
> Anyway, I'm not working on a system that is "better" than yours.
Nice goal, just not one I think is necessary. But then you aren't writing
these for me, are you? <grin> Keep working out the details and keep us
informed.
Gracias,
> Roger Books wrote:
> Yes, I know, DS is already FMA.
Partially FMA, but not completely so. IIRC DS2 was published before Jon
name-protected FMA, but my memory is a bit shaky.
> I'm talking about dropping
There aren't any "hand aimed" weapons which roll to hit in DS - they
either just draw chits (like IAVRs), or they have a fire control of some sort.
Also, if you just give the attacker his quality die as a secondary to the FCS
die you increase the number of hits quite a lot.
> The defender rolls one die based on signature:
[snip]
> The die class may be modified, it can never be
OK, so a Very Small vehicle is no harder to hit if it uses cover or evades
than it would be if it sat parked in the open; similarly a Small VTOL might
just as well hover in plain sight as do a pop-up attack. Sounds
realistic ;-)
You intend to use to-hit rolls against infantry as well?
> Results:
This increases the number of kills even further - ie., beyond the effect
of
the added QD in the to-hit mechanic. (Of course it depends on what dice
you use, but you don't have all that many to choose from.)
> Do a comparision as in SG.
> One thing I still need is a chart. I'm assuming all weapons do
Uh? Not sure what you refer to here. In SGII the various weapons do not all do
D12 at close range, neither in Impact nor in fire control, and they don't drop
die types as the range increases...?
> Thoughts?
Much more complex, and therefore much slower, than the current DS system
(or any of the DS-FMA variants I've tried). In a typical SG battle there
aren't all that many anti-vehicle shots, so the extra complexity
compared to infantry firefights doesn't slow the game very much; in DS they
are the vast majority of the shots so the added complexity is quite noticable.
Regards,
I usu. pronounce IAVR
EYE-uh-vur
when I pronounce the acronym But I can't tell my left from my right
:)
jim
> Laserlight wrote:
> PS. Sorry about the IVAR. I am dyslexic and did not notice that I
Is anyone on this list in Denver, CO? Eric