> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
If I had a carefully crafted Imperial assault force, I would be sure that my
opponent was using a realistic, carefully crafted Rebel scum defence force.
Putting them up against WH40K Epic Eldar, Hammer's Slammers or ultra modern US
Army would just be a mockery! It's important that both sides are in the same
genre. It should be possible to look at each vehicle and infanty element and
unit and know whether or not they fit the chosen genre. In my games, I insist
that every player have a strong easily described concept for their forces.
Myself, I am assembling a planetary defence
force/ultra-modern army based on the Swiss Army and what I think the New
Zealand armed forces should be like. The vehicles are low cost, high mobility
wheeled vehicles armed with lots of GMS with no energy weapons. The infantry
is all militia. Most units are green with a few regulars.
My second force is based on Battletech planetary raiders/mercenaries
and is comprised of all walkers, some aerospace, but no infantry or artillery.
Most units are veteran with a few regulars. Kris, one of my friends, has
designed an army using modified WH40K Epic Eldar miniatures. He uses stealth,
ablative armour, HEL's, DFFG's, GRAV, FGP and only PA infantry. Unit quality
is all veteran. His vehicles are enormously expensive with high levels of
stealth and fire control! His second force is based on Hammer's Slammers.
After reading Jon's excellent article on the appropriate conversions for
Hammer's Slammers, we haven't come up with capable opponents yet! They can be
quite scary! We also have bug forces, loosely based on Starship Troopers (the
book).
They have no technology, just swarms of infantry/bugs. These are very
easy to play, just cover half the table with bits of paper to represent the
bug hordes, and advance groups 6" per turn. Get to the far end of the table
and they win!
Our other genre is Ultra-modern/near future where everything we read
about in military magazines is permissable and available. So then we have
rules for indirectly fired GMS, artillery firing GMS, more GMS sizes, laser
and missile AA defences, toss bombing, etc. All these are available in my web
site. Along with vehicles and infantry appropriate for their genre, we also
have genre specific rules of war. For example, when we fight human(oid)s vs
human(oid)s, we disallow nukes and chemical weapons. We reason that higher
command has decided that these are not available as the planet is at stake.
When we fight against bugs, sequestering aliens or WH40K jean steelers, nukes
and chemical weapons are available, as failure for the defending human(oid)s
usually has far greater consequences. Other genre limitations you might
consider are technologies. For
example, GMS, CFE, HMT and non-energy weapons might be unavailable as
the ammunition, fuel costs and supply train problems would be prohibitive.
This would be appropriate for Imperial and Rebel forces. If you want, you can
have no limitations, just a points value per side. Then the game rapidly
decays down to who has the most nukes and forward observers, and is lucky with
their morale rolls.
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
> If I had a carefully crafted Imperial assault force, I would be
I agree, but make sure how? Especially in a pickup game? Against a guy you've
never seen in your life? Ok, everyone knows Star Wars, but what about more
esoteric backgrounds? How many people in the world how to construct a
"realistic" Kilrathi ground force? (I don't)
I personally think some optionals like that (and playtesting/analysing
them!) are in the realm of things I pay the game publisher money for.
I'd much rather have that than the current "we knew people would want to play
with X so we put them in, but we don't really like X, so it's not really a
viable choice except against other idiots who also take X."
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Design both sides! Have Rebel and Imperial forces. Kilrathi and Earth forces.
Bugs and Starship troopers. etc. Pick randomly which side you take. After
playing the scenario once, swap sides!
> Ok, everyone knows Star Wars, but what
I don't either! But if I liked it, I would study it and find the vision behind
it. Then it all fits into place, usually. Sometimes it doesn't
like -
Star Trek. I can't suspend my disbelief long enough and start laughing in
inappropriate places!
> I personally think some optionals like that (and playtesting/analysing
Possibly. But then, I can't wait for ever! I've been waiting for DS2 long
enough! So now I make up my own genres, settings etc. to suit my self and my
friends. Besides what if the game publisher gets it wrong? Why not get in the
action by publishing your own conversion on the 'net?
> I'd much rather have that than the current "we knew people would want
Just disallow it. But be sure to have a good reason for it and you should say
why it's been disallowed before the game starts.
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
> Design both sides! Have Rebel and Imperial forces. Kilrathi and
I don't know if I'm alone in this, maybe it's a leftover from my Car Wars
days, but I really like composing a force against an *unknown* foe, guessing
what he might have, figuring countertactics etc. Scenario games with
predesigned forces are ok, but they completely ignore this side,
which is maybe 30-50% of the enjoyment I get from the game.
> Possibly. But then, I can't wait for ever! I've been waiting for
Well, properly playtesting rule changes is very tedious work. Frankly, I
*really, really* doubt any game company on this planet does enough playtesting
to gather statistically meaningful samples. Given my sparse gaming schedule,
it'd take literally years to arrive at a good solution.
Long, long time ago I played AD&D. We didn't really like it, but it was one of
the few things widely available. So we made changes. And changes. And more
changes until the thing resembled AD&D only barely (and it still didn't quite
work). Finally I started wondering why the%&#&#%& I'm paying them money for a
product I need to spend this much time fixing? Since then, we've played
GURPS...
Frankly, if I want to play something vanilla DSII doesn't cover too well, I'm
much more likely to buy a product that does (from ANY company) than try to fix
DSII.
> Just disallow it. But be sure to have a good reason for it and you
You don't need to disallow NON-viable choices. You may have to disallow
everything *else*, though, to make them viable.
> You wrote:
> If you want, you can have no limitations, just a points value per
To be honest, I've NEVER met a DSII gamer who actually wanted to use nuclear
weapons or biochems. Maybe it's just me...
But that's the only limitation we usually play with. I limit _myself_
to a few standard forces, all on my webpage (Ditto FT). But the other guy, if
he can come up with better stuff, he can go for it. I doubt anyone will be
able to whip up a force that can beat me with simple
design tricks (if you think you can, e-mail me), so it's down to
tactics, which I prefer. If I took a BTechish force, then all it would take
would be intelligent designing to beat me.
> But that's the only limitation we usually play with. I limit _myself_
> take would be intelligent designing to beat me.
And that webpage is where?
> You wrote:
> And that webpage is where?
http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/Rhomaioi.html
And follow the links to Army and hence from there.
Different elements have varying capabilities, but I'm pretty confident about
most of them against most comers.
The only part you can't get to from there is
/basileus/allies.html, and those are pretty low-tech cannon fodder
feoderati.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Yes, I've played AD&D as well, and tried to fix it... I spent far too long at
it, and brought far too many game systems to try to find a system that worked
properly. You can find out some more about my favourite RPG system at my web
site here:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
> Well, properly playtesting rule changes is very tedious work. Frankly,
I doubt that any gaming company can afford to! That's what players have been
used for!
> Frankly, if I want to play something vanilla DSII doesn't cover too
I've bought lots of product from other companies, BattleTech from FASA in
several editions, Mechton Plus and Mechton Zeta from RTG, WRG's
1925-1950
and 1950-2000 Wargame rules, and other's whose name I can't remember.
*All*
fall short of Star Grunt II, Dirtside II, Full Thrust and More Thrust. I've
even got the Fleet book on order from Australia. If you do find something that
covers ultramodern and futuristic warfare better than DSII (other than the
real thing available to John Atkinson
:-)
!), PLEASE let us know! But I don't think you will be able to! GZG products
cover the field and are designed well enough to allow easy modification to
suit almost any genre.
So, what's your vision/setting/book/movie that you want? Let us
know, maybe we can get to work in designing a good set of limitations that are
believable.
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
> http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
As I get older, Fudge-style of gaming appeals more and more to me. I
don't
have the time and energy to memorize a 300-page rulebook anymore.
> I doubt that any gaming company can afford to! That's what players
Except that no one (I know of) collects any *hard* data from players --
just impressions and opinions.
> If you do find something that covers ultramodern and futuristic
Well, the thing is, I don't really care for the "M-1 Abrams with laser
cannon" style of ultramodern warfare found in DSII. I did my time in grays,
and frankly my interest in (gaming) modern warfare is pretty much zero. I game
either historical wars in times before I was born, or something comfortably
scifi far future.
Let's see some alternatives:
Ogre miniatures - a whole lot faster, a whole lot easier to remember the
rules and does, well, Ogres a whole lot better. No counters on board. There
are things about it I don't like, but it has its advantages over DSII.
Generic Legions - FREE, fast, simple, easy to remember rules. Admittedly
not very realistic, and too many dice rolls. This is what I'd use for Star
Wars -style futuristic combat. No counters on board.
Mecha carnage - Does the mecha genre MILES better than DSII. Well, it
was
purpose-built to, so I'm not blaming DSII, merely stating a fact.
Mecha! - ditto, but has its own share of faults.
WRG 1925-50 - I have the 70's edition, and frankly I like it because it
was built to model the historical weapons instead forcing them into
generic templates. E.g. the last time I checked the DSII-WWII rules, I
recall they handled early war large caliber short barrel cannon rather poorly.
In a historical game I want to see the difference between a
75/70
and a 88/56 instead of having them lumped together as KEC/4's identical
in performance.
Shockforce - fast, simple, easy to remember, no counters. Unlike most
other games of its ilk, has complete construction rules so I can play with my
old space marines. The official background is patently stupid, but you're free
to ignore it.
Warzone - really, if you ignore the super-duper-hyper crap, the basic
rules are quite sound.
General Quarters - Does WWI(I) naval a whole lot better than FT.
Ofcourse, it was built to. Fast, easy. The only naval game I've seen with
manageable yet somewhat realistic torpedo rules.
Shipbase III - ditto, but with far more detail and slightly slower play.
Requires a computer though...
> So, what's your vision/setting/book/movie that you want? Let us
Well, personally I find guided missiles to be the most boring part of modern
warfare.
Let's say I want Hammer's Slammers. I can live with downgrading the powerguns
(probably a good idea for game balance), but it just ain't
Slammers if guided missiles are a-flying.
Let's say Star Wars. Erm... HELs and DFFGs only?
Let's say Redliners. Needs rules for energy fields to begin with.
Let's say Renegade Legion. The missiles are there, but they need serious
downgrading. Energy fields again.
Let's say Ogre. Needs tougher modular vehicles. Again, something must be done
about the missiles.
Let's say Votoms or Appleseed or Heavy Gear. Actually, this might work if
people just take the walkers and ignore the fact that they don't really need
to or that the points might be better spent elsewhere.
Let's say Gundam or Macross. Total reworking of mecha rules needed.
Let's say anything by Johji Manabe. Needs weird biotech (we'll ignore the
babes with swords bit).
Let's say Starship troopers the book.
Let's say Northworld. Now that's really tricky... needs energy fields, the
power armor stuff is probably better done in 25mm, the lizards got weird
biotech... a wide variety of stuff.
Let's say... dare I say it? WH40K. Yes, the current edition is patently
stupid, but the old Rogue Trader background has some nice points and the basic
minis are cheap and plentiful (especially the discontinued ones). It is NOT a
good way to win an old Epic gamer for DSII by having him lose a match because
Land Raider is essentially a WWI tank design.
Hmmm... now that I think of it, I can't recall a *single* science fiction
story with combat that plays like DSII. They probably exist, yes, but either
I've never read one or it didn't leave any lasting impression.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
That's right. Would you play the same scenario ten times in a row for a
game company? I wouldn't! I would just say, this _______ isn't any good
or this is very good!
> WRG 1925-50 - I have the 70's edition, and frankly I like it because it
The WRG rules model the differences so indifferently, that most players don't
play in certain periods with some nationalities as they know that certain
combinations are ineffective, even though they were effective in WWII. For
example, early war German tanks can't destroy French and English tanks. Also,
mid war German tanks can't destroy Russian tanks.
> Shockforce - fast, simple, easy to remember, no counters. Unlike most
Then why bother to play it? The construction rules for DSII are quite
reasonable as well. As for counters, in DSII, if your force is all one
quality, you can eliminate the quality counter or only place quality counters
on the small portion of your force that is different. The confidence counter
is only needed to record when your unit is being moved. It can be left off,
until needed if you're honest. Or you could put them on a separate sheet of
paper, where your platoon organisation is.
> Warzone - really, if you ignore the super-duper-hyper crap, the basic
I thought the twin engine, one man helicopter, particularly odd. But you can
use SGII for this quite easily, or my Power Armoured Trooper rules which I'm
still working on.
> So, what's your vision/setting/book/movie that you want? Let us
A GMS/H or GMS/3 that hits can spoil anyone's day. Be sure to avoid
them! Play with lots of blocking terrain. Blind them with smoke. Hit them with
mine fields fired from artillery. Call in aerospace strikes on top of them.
Fire artillery at them. Have a spare nuke in your inventory. Assault them with
infantry after blinding them with smoke. Use combined arms.
> Let's say I want Hammer's Slammers. I can live with downgrading the
Keep the powerguns as Jon Tuffley wrote them. Any missile that comes flying
towards Hammer's Slammers GEV's is automatically destroyed. The CO can mutter
ironically, "They bought guided missiles to a Power Gun fight?" The crew can
laugh in unison, as they track the missiles and detroy them in flight with
quick main gun blasts. By the way, Hammer's Slammers fight like the US in the
Vietnam War era.
> Let's say Star Wars. Erm... HELs and DFFGs only?
Yes. Long supply lines means that GMS, artillery, HVC, HKP, and MDC munitions
are too expensive to transport. On call Star Destroyer orbital artillery is
available. Planetary field generators and easily available nuclear dampers
stop nukes. See "Star Wars: The Empire Strike Back". Add another weapon,
called blaster or BL. RED and YELLOW validity, with, say, MDC ranges. Just for
variety.
> Let's say Redliners. Needs rules for energy fields to begin with.
Develop a device called a shield generator and give it a size rating. This
rating is like levels of armour. Once the shield has been penetrated, the
vehicle can be attacked and possibly destroyed. Next turn, the shield is
restored, if the vehicle is still running. Adjust points cost and capacity to
suit, based on literature descriptions of the energy field generators. If
there is one in every vehicle, then it's as cheap as a weapon. Any other
problems?
> Let's say Renegade Legion. The missiles are there, but they need
Use SLAM packs instead of GMS and point targets instead of area effect. The
armour erosion rules that RL uses are a variant of DSII armour and penetration
rules. They are really a horrible system! Disallow GMS as being too hard to
supply to forces across interstellar distances.
> Let's say Ogre. Needs tougher modular vehicles. Again, something must
Reduce GMS damage to 1 per size class. GMS/L = 1 chit. GMS/H = 2
chits. Nuclear suppression dampers (see my site) negate nukes. Modular
vehicles, make parts out of large vehicles, use level 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 armour
as appropriate. Assume no size penalty for ogres.
> Let's say Votoms or Appleseed or Heavy Gear. Actually, this might work
Just use walkers. If someone brings on tanks, have the CO say, "they brought
tanks to a walker fight?", the platoon laugh in unison as before the tank has
time to fire its weapon, the walker has plucked the turret from the tank! See
my site for walker's removing turrets.
> Let's say Gundam or Macross. Total reworking of mecha rules needed.
Oh, what modifications? Using fists or kicking? See my site. Mecha in
space? Use Full Thrust and fighter rules or treat them as aerospace/VTOL
and
walker combination vehicles. Clubs/Swords for mecha? See my site.
I haven't got any rules for a Mecha shield, yet. Shall I work some out?
Shapechanging: mecha has ability of new vehicle type at start of next turn.
> Let's say anything by Johji Manabe. Needs weird biotech (we'll ignore
You could always use Nuns with Guns instead! Biotech: regenerates sensor down
and immobilise results by start of next turn. Magical beams as HEL, DFFG or
PowerGun.
> Let's say Starship troopers the book.
Play Star Grunt II, but allow the starship trooper GMS teams to fire nuke
shells. Allow PA to jump 500m? at a time. Disallow vehicles. Rico says, "They
brought tanks to a PA fight?", the squad members go to ground, laughing, as
Rico fires a nuke into the tank assembly area.
> Let's say Northworld. Now that's really tricky... needs energy fields,
Use above modifications and play SGII.
> Let's say... dare I say it? WH40K. Yes, the current edition is patently
Yes, but can you suspend your disbelief long enough? There are several
conversions to DSII on the net. One that I have from another author covers
everything that GW manufactured in 1/300 or Epic scale.
> Hmmm... now that I think of it, I can't recall a *single* science
Your books seem to deal mostly in things probably best covered by SGII.
No doubt I've missed something, but then I haven't read/viewed all of
the source material.
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> That's right. Would you play the same scenario ten times in a row
I couldn't--my opponents learn too fast for any scenario to get played
twice. After the second time, we'd both know it too well to make any screwups
and the balance would be rapidly determined.
> The WRG rules model the differences so indifferently, that most
Which, quite frankly, is such crap. Any tank can kill any other. Remember
this. I've seen the pictures of the Tiger taken out by 37mm. And the only game
I know which models this fact of warfare is Dirtside II. You pull the boom
chit, the target is gone. End of story. Most
games don't have that option. Also regards those mid-war German tanks,
PzIIIs _regularly_ scrapped T-34s. Why? Visibility out of the T-34s
was so bad that, in combination with piss-poor crew training, the
Germans generally could maneuver for flank and rear shots at close range and
get them before the Russians realized what was happening.
> A GMS/H or GMS/3 that hits can spoil anyone's day. Be sure to
Hit them >with mine fields fired from artillery. Call in aerospace
Buy decent ECM and PDS for the heavy tanks that are the main targets.
Or @()$&Q)@!_$*% #$ Reactive Armor.
> At 11:29 PM 9/6/98 +1200, you wrote:
[SNIP]
> Let's say Ogre. Needs tougher modular vehicles. Again, something must
If you are using "Nuclear Suppression Dampers" you are not playing with the
Ogre background. Nukes in Ogre are cheap, plentiful, and definitely not
suppressed. Indeed, if I recall correctly, virtually everything fires nukes,
from the Infantry to the GEVs. Frankly, I would stick with Ogre Miniatures
itself to play a pure Ogre battle, and not use DSII at all. To adapt an Ogre
to a regular DSII battle is another story...I'd lose the Nukes entirely, for
one thing. Too many Nukes can really spoil a DSII game. And yes, the modular
vehicle rules would need work. Lots of it.
[SNIP]
> Let's say Starship troopers the book.
Definitely not. Personally, I would never attempt to simulate ST in 25mm
scale; it simply would not work. 500m is 50 inches on the tabletop, and two
jumps (at most) are going to take the MI right off the board. Plus, at that
scale, one Nuke would wipe out the entire board, and that's not a lot
of fun. For DSII, it might be workable-didn't someone do rules for
this?-but it wouldn't necessarily be pretty. I wouldn't want to be the
guy playing the bugs....
[SNIP]
> Hmmm... now that I think of it, I can't recall a *single* science
But SGII really doesn't deal with armor battles very well. It's not intended
to. And a lot of the sources cited above include armored vehicles. Lots of
them.
> No doubt I've missed something, but then I haven't read/viewed all of
I am beginning to agree with the writer of the "SGII Players vs. 40K Players"
list...both groups of players seem unable to admit that their game
of choice is not the be-all and end-all of SF miniature gaming. I am
sorry, but no game, no matter how good, is going to be able to simulate
everything that a player could possibly desire. DSII and SGII both reflect a
particular view of SF warfare, and are very good at simulating it, but there
are other views that are equally valid. Look at "Dune", look at "The Forever
Peace", look at "The Diamond Age", look at Iain Banks "Culture" novels...hell,
I would cheerfully bet on one Culture drone against an entire platoon of
"Starship Troopers" MI. And I would not use SGII to simulate the battle.
Or look at the "Honor Harrington" books. HH is a good series, and one that a
lot of people on this list (myself included) are very fond of. It is not,
however, a series that can accurately be simulated by Full Thrust, despite
people's best efforts. A battle in HH is nothing like a FT battle. Sorry, but
that's the way it is. You can do HH rules for Full Thrust, but they are not
going to be a very good reflection of the books. And thus, a friend of mine
has been working an entirely new set of rules for playing battles in the Honor
Harrington universe. He's even designing and casting his own ships out of
resin. And, despite this, he still plays and enjoys Full Thrust.
There is no such thing as the perfect game, no matter what people think. It's
a delusion common to 40K players, and it's the one thing that most infuriates
me about them. I think that the people on this list tend to be
a bit more open-minded, but there seems to be something of the same
attitude here as well. Me, I'm willing to admit that even 40K has its good
points.
You just have to look reeeeeeal hard to find them.
> Glover, Owen <oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
Thank you.
> John Atkinson <jatkins6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Absolutely correct in real life! The WRG rules wouldn't simulate it! You could
completely encircle a tank, fire constantly and have no effect on it in WRG
rules! Which is why I no longer use them! Thanks for the example, John!
> A GMS/H or GMS/3 that hits can spoil anyone's day. Be sure to
Yes, that as well. Also, some ZAD/ADS vehicles to shoot GMS down.
> John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
To
> adapt an Ogre to a regular DSII battle is another story...I'd lose the
Reduce DSII nuke to doing, say, 10 points of damage against one target
vehicle. You would have to do some work and be interested in the background.
I'm not familiar with it, so I can't do much more than this.
> "They brought tanks to a PA fight?", the squad members go to ground,
Plus, at
> that scale, one Nuke would wipe out the entire board, and that's not a
Actually, I was thinking of DSII scales, but wrote the jumping distance wrong.
I would probably use 1.2 Km jumping distances and eliminate GMS. Rico's
missile seemed to be of limited guidance ability. By the way, ST plays like
WWII with PA. It was based on Heinlein's experience in naval warfare, and then
he extrapolated.
> But SGII really doesn't deal with armor battles very well. It's not
I'm not familiar with all the sources. They seemed to be more suited to SGII
from Mikko's descriptions.
> I am beginning to agree with the writer of the "SGII Players vs. 40K
GZG DSII and SGII are the best games currently available for modern,
ultramodern, and near future wargaming. The rules do need some polishing to
suit ultra modern capabilities.
> I am
Absolutely.
> DSII and SGII both reflect
Yes.
> ... but
Yes, how do we simulate a worm? Maybe like weather perhaps, or a nuke effect
but with no radiation. I read "The Diamond Age", I liked it, but I don't
remember any armour battles in it. There were social conflicts and character
conflicts, though.
I _am_ a member of the Culture! ;-) How did you know? :-)
> There is no such thing as the perfect game, no matter what people
Yes, you're right.
> It's a delusion common to 40K players, and it's the one thing that most
Lack of experience/reading. They're young.
> I think that the people on this list tend to be
I'd like to think so, but I think Mikko's depressed. I was trying to encourage
him.
> Me, I'm willing to admit that even 40K has its good
WH40K brings new players into wargaming. Most young gamers are into
powergaming which GW feeds or is it the other way round? When the young gamers
grow up, they either leave or look around for something better. Which we can
offer.
> At 10:32 AM 9/7/98 +1200, you wrote:
There are none. I am in the middle of re-reading it, and jusr finished
reading that virtually all warfare is being fought entirely by nanomachines.
Not something that ANY game could really model, and not something that would
be a lot of fun to play anyway. *Roll Dice* "All of your soldiers explode!
Guess your counternanites weren't up to snuff!"
I was just trying to say that war could, potentially, get really weird. Even
in the relatively near future.
[SNIP]
> Me, I'm willing to admit that even 40K has its good
Which
> we can offer.
That would have been my main argument in favor of the continued existance of
GW. Even 40K players grow up eventually. As do, apparently, game designers!
Look at the new Epic 40K vs. Space Marine, and see which game is (a lot) more
playable.
> Andrew Martin
[quoted original message omitted]
> John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
Yes. That future is closer than most people imagine. See my links on
nanotechnology for more. Another book on nanotechnology put forward the idea
that nanotech could alter the allegiance of the enemy! Leading to: *Roll Dice*
"All of your soldiers join my side!" Guess your counternanites were
overwhelmed!
> That would have been my main argument in favour of the continued
Yes, my friend Alex has GW's Epic and I've read through and studied the rules.
They're a lot more playable than GW's earlier system. The "word ability" for
units is a good feature that I would like to incorporate in DSII and in my
unnamed, undesigned higher scale version, dealing with companies and brigades.
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Noah Doyle wrote:
> near/mid-future weaponry (Ralph Peters, others). If you want to
True, ofcourse. But even though the Jack of all trades is master of none,
sometimes there *is* no master.
E.g. name the game purpose-built to game Outlanders? I don't know of
one. Unless you feel like writing a game system from scratch, the best you can
do is adapt a "close enough" generic game.
> On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
> The WRG rules model the differences so indifferently, that most
Well, I never said it didn't have it's share of shortcomings, though I don't
recall anything quite that bad. Which edition are you playing?
> >Shockforce - fast, simple, easy to remember, no counters. Unlike most
> Then why bother to play it?
I don't understand you. Being fast easy and fun is not reason enough to play?
Or was it about the background world? Then I shouldn't play any GZG games
either as I really don't care for the official background at all.
> >Warzone - really, if you ignore the super-duper-hyper crap, the basic
That's *exactly* what I mean by the super-duper-hyper crap. Throw all
the
idiotic stuff and cyber-shit away, just take some basic squads and
leaders and equip them somewhat reasonably (i.e. the captain does *not* get
the biggest gun) and it's quite nice.
E.g. bracing heavy weapons. It's a nice, good rule. Except that everyone
worth his salt takes enough cybercrap/whatever to boost their strength
high enough to ignore the penalty, so it never really shows up in play.
> Keep the powerguns as Jon Tuffley wrote them.
With no point value...
> Any missile that comes
I'm going to chop off most of your solutions for brevity, because I feel they
fall into two categories. This, I feel, is the worse one: Arbitrarily
disallowing something for no good logical reason.
I'm sorry, but "you just can't do that" simply doesn't cut the mustard in my
book.
Jon's article, while a very good read, fails in that it does not provide any
actual rules for the Slammers' very common ability to shoot down aircraft,
missiles and artillery shells almost at will. Heck, he doesn't even rate the
supertank a simple PDS. What makes this omission even worse is that this
ability is the very justification for the entire existance of the regiment.
See "The Warrior" for what Drake feels will happen to an
armored force left without this defense -- rapid death by AT artillery.
And in a "brind-n-battle" environment, it needs a point value.
> By the way, Hammer's Slammers fight like the US in the Vietnam War
The US in Vietnam didn't have too much trouble with ATGM's, I seem to
recall... Drake's justification isn't entirely logical, but he knew he'd have
to get rid of the rapidly advancing missile technology somehow to justify big
gun MBTs as viable future war machines.
> Develop a device called a shield generator and give it a size
This is the other category of your solutions: A house rule. While it could
work, I did previously say that making rules and playtesting them is what I
think I am paying the publisher for.
If I have to weigh the time and trouble of properly testing a house rule for
system X vs. just buying system Y that already covers the issue, the rule has
to be *very* minor, or I have to like X *very,very* much to justify the work.
> The armour erosion rules that RL uses are a variant of DSII armour and
Actually, I found it fun. Not realistic, sure, and a bit slow to play, but fun
nonetheless.
> Reduce GMS damage to 1 per size class. GMS/L = 1 chit. GMS/H = 2
Now, this is actually a worthwhile suggestion. Except that it probably throws
the balance off the other way, making GMS too expensive for what it can do.
> Yes, but can you suspend your disbelief long enough?
I find it easier to accept that a slightly silly looking vehicle has a place
on the battlefield than a blanket "you just can't do that" going against
published rules.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I too am interested. It's getting rather OT here, but the latest WRG rules
I've found to give the most realistic simulations of combat there are.
Take Matilda IIs vs Pz Is, and you will do well. Take them vs Pz IIs, you'll
do somewhat less well, as the 20mm incendiary ammunition can KO a Matilda II
(as a Sherman can KO a Tiger... not likely!). Pz IIIs with 37mm are nearly
useless.
Look at Arras. This is what actually happened. It took field guns etc to drive
them away. OTOH if you take a look at the SKIRMISH etc capabilities of the
Germans in 1940 vs the very restrictive capabilities
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
How about DFFG + HEL cost * 2? It's up to us, and the group to find
an acceptable points value. Just moaning about it won't help. After all, I
don't know of a game system that will let you play Hammer's Slammers
(HS)
except for an Arab-Israeli war game!
> Jon's article, while a very good read, fails in that it does not
HS doesn't need PDS. HS GEV tanks automatically, with no cost in actions,
shoot down missiles. This is because the opponent's missiles aren't DSII fire
and forget, self homing, high speed missiles.
> And in a "brind-n-battle" environment, it needs a point value.
Do you mean "Bring 'n' Battle"? Then you aren't playing Hammer's Slammers!
You're playing with no limitations and no genre.
> By the way, Hammer's Slammers fight like the US in the Vietnam War
Vietnam War era is also close to Arab-Israeli war era. Where ATGMs
were first used in war. Hammer's Slammers era missiles are operator
controlled, wire guided, joystick control devices, where the operator guides
the missile to the target by seeing where the missile was and guiding it to
its target. The standard technique for tank crews, when they saw a missile
launch, was to fire at the operator with 0.50 calibre MG and Main gun HE
rounds. Typically the operator ducked and the missile automatically missed, or
the missile was hit with the main gun HE burst. Therefore no problems.
Hammer's Slammers don't have DSII era fire and forget, self homing, high speed
missiles. So when playing in the Hammer's Slammers era, all missiles fired at
tanks will automatically miss. No rolls or actions required. HS combat cars
were open topped because they were based on a old Soviet apc wich was open
topped. I get the impression David Drake didn't like M113s! HS also isn't NBC
capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC weapons to be used.
> Develop a device called a shield generator and give it a size
Sure, but why wait? Why not just go ahead and do it! You could always plead to
Jon Tuffley for him to write you a rule! I would much prefer us all to discuss
here it on the list.
> If I have to weigh the time and trouble of properly testing a house
But does system Y have all the good points of system X?
> Reduce GMS damage to 1 per size class. GMS/L = 1 chit. GMS/H = 2
Then discard them! Use towed AT guns instead! Assume that GMS are too costly
for the defenders and attackers, or that supply trains can't supply the
ammount needed for a battle.
> Yes, but can you suspend your disbelief long enough?
The game is what you make of it. When playing in a genre, use the genre
limitations and accept them. When not playing in a genre, don't use the genre
limitations. If you need reasons for the genre limitations, research the genre
and find them out. Don't moan about it! It doesn't help! It only hinders.
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
> How about DFFG + HEL cost * 2? It's up to us, and the group to
How about the *real* Hammer's Slammers game from Mayfair? Ok, it's out of
print.
Dave Ferris' Generic Legions can do it, and probably quite a number of other
generic systems.
> HS doesn't need PDS. HS GEV tanks automatically, with no cost in
Erm, I couldn't see this bit in the article.
> This is because the opponent's missiles aren't
And this is simply not true... more on this later.
> >And in a "brind-n-battle" environment, it needs a point value.
I want to play a "Slammers-inspired" force in a bring'n'battle. Is that
really too much to ask?
> first used in war. Hammer's Slammers era missiles are operator
...
> Hammer's
...
> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a old
...
> HS also isn't NBC capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC
Excuse me, but have you actually *read* any of the stories? How about the
"interludes" that explain the world and technology?
> But does system Y have all the good points of system X?
It just has to be good enough to be enjoyable.
DSII is not the end-all, be-all scifi microarmor game. (sacrilige!
horror! shock! blasphemy!) If it doesn't cover what I want to play, I just
won't play it.
> The game is what you make of it. When playing in a genre, use the
A blanket ban is not a very satisfactory solution. Background reasons need
game reasons to back them up.
Let's consider the Slammers & missiles dilemma:
In the Slammers universe, fire&forget AT missiles (and combat aircraft) are
not used because supertank firecon can shoot them down almost ridiculously
easily.
But not everyone has the ultra-high tech of the Slammers force. In fact,
almost all of the forces the Slammers face use substantially lower technology.
Why don't such forces use guided missiles against each other? This is where
Drake's logic breaks down... logically, ofcourse, they would. (And logically,
Slammers should use ATGMs against them) But then
you can't get away with the blanket assumption that no one has GMS --
you need *rules* for the superb Slammers defenses, and an associated point
cost that will balance them with the indigs.
Let's give supertanks superior PDS. Is it good enough? (I don't think so) Does
it even fit in the tank? And just how does it help with the "shoot down
aircraft" bit?
> Don't moan about it! It doesn't help! It only hinders.
To offer you another analogy, what would you say if you bought a house and got
a pile of bricks and a sack of cement with a brochure reading:
"The new CementSlab 2000 housing system is completely customizable. Therefore,
no customer complaints about design will be accepted."?
> Mikko wrote:
> I want to play a "Slammers-inspired" force in a bring'n'battle. Is
OK. *I* want to play a Mecha-inspired force in a Mayfair "Hammer's
Slammers" game, or a Slammers-inspired force in Mecha Carnage. Can I do
this without changing the rules a lot? Is it really too much to ask that I
should be able to?
And don't tell my anything about mechas don't belonging in the "Hammer's
Slammers" universe. You're the one who don't seem to want genre limitations
applied.
> > Don't moan about it! It doesn't help! It only hinders.
If all I got was a pile of bricks and a sack of cement, yes. However,
that analogy doesn't hold - what you *do* get when buying DSII is the
analogue of a fully functional flat or house designed to allow you to move
most walls etc as you like, if you find that you don't like the
current lay-out. (I live in such a house, and have done just that.)
If you, after buying such a house, starts moaning about "my bedroom is too
small", none of your neighbours will sympathize with you. They'll
just tell you "So? Knock a wall out, then..." - and this is *exactly*
the reaction you've gotten here on the list.
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> OK. *I* want to play a Mecha-inspired force in a Mayfair "Hammer's
Not exactly a fair comparison, as neither of those games is marketed as
generic universal scifi game. And, actually I think you could do it in Mecha
Carnage without rewriting anything (don't expect to be king of the
battlefiled though -- only an equal contender).
> If all I got was a pile of bricks and a sack of cement, yes. However,
Wouldn't you have gotten off with less work if you had just bought a house
with the room design as you wanted it? Or at the very least as close as
possible?
Herein lies the rub: DS2 is sold as "can do anything" game. What it really can
do (rather well, I admit), is Official GZG Universe(tm) or distinctive
likeness thereof. Anything else is extra work.
It suffers from the same problem I outlined with Mecha! - Yes you can
play
with/without X, but it's really stupid and you'll get hosed by an
opponent who doesn't agree with that design limitation.
And frankly, I can't really see the "designed to be customized" bit. Do we
have a formula for costing new weapon systems? Err.. no. Do we have a formula
for costing new movement systems? Err.. no. Do we have a formula for costing
new defensive systems? Err.. no. Do we have a formula for costing units based
on capabilities without
reverse-engineering how they were built? Err.. no.
Do we have professionally published optional "genre modules" *I* proposed very
early in this discussion? Errr... no.
For the record, I am not moaning. I merely stated some of the reasons why I
don't regularly play DS2. Andrew has been trying to convince me I should try
to change DS2 into what I like. I don't see why. It's not the only good game
under the sun, it doesn't do what I want to do, and frankly I'm probably
better off with something else that does.
I wouldn't mind if there was a fully thought-out, playtested "Slammers
for Dirtside 2" module. I might even buy such a product. But I have no
obsession that I must do Slammers in DS2.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Yes. Can it handle modern, battle tech and ultra modern? No.
> Dave Ferris' Generic Legions can do it, and probably quite a number of
So can DSII! Can they handle modern, battle tech, and ultra modern? No.
> HS doesn't need PDS. HS GEV tanks automatically, with no cost in
Described in the short stories compilation which I have. Also, implied by you
earlier.
> I want to play a "Slammers-inspired" force in a bring'n'battle. Is that
That's fine. Make sure that your opponent agrees with you and fields an
appropriate force designed for the Hammer's Slammers (HS) genre. Otherwise,
you must use the standard rules without HS Power Guns and with standard DSII
GMS.
> Excuse me, but have you actually *read* any of the stories? How about
Yes. That's where I got the information from. Careful reading shows this.
Don't extend today's or near future technology into the HS genre. It doesn't
fit.
> A blanket ban is not a very satisfactory solution. Background reasons
I though I did! Oh, well here they are again. HS has no GMS as described by
DSII rules. The missiles that are fired in HS stories are of two types. One is
the very short range buzz bombs that are carried by infantry. These are
adequately covered by the DSII rules already. The other missile system in HS
is the wireguided, joystick operated, operator controlled missiles used by the
various defenders. They are exactly similar to first generation AT missiles as
used by various Arab nations in the Arab Israeli wars. HS GEV tank crew deal
with them in exactly the same way as the Israelis did. That is, fire heavy MG
and tank guns at the operator and the missile. The fire causes the operator to
duck, the missile goes off course and explodes harmlessly in the ground. Only
if the tank crew are totally unaware of the threat, for example, in DSII
travel mode, does these missile system pose any problem. If you need a
guidance dice roll, use 1D2 and let the crew quality die be the defence.
> Let's give supertanks superior PDS. Is it good enough? (I don't think
They didn't have PDS in the stories! Therefore it's not allowed by the genre!
> And just how does it help with the "shoot down aircraft" bit?
In David Drake's military experience, there was no terrain following, no Nap
of Earth flying and no multimach ground attack aeroplanes. All aeroplanes
followed a straight course at a safe altitude immune to rifle fire. This
course is easy to predict. Just fire ahead of the position the plane is in now
and the plane goes down when hit by Power Gun rounds. If you want a system,
roll the GEV's fire control dice. Any result but "1" and the plane is shot
down.
> To offer you another analogy, what would you say if you bought a house
I, too, would be disappointed and I would complain. But I didn't get this when
I bought the DSII rules. I bought a generic SF wargames system that is easy to
alter to suit my chosen genres. I use DSII for modern, ultramodern, GZG Future
History and BattleTech genres. Each genre has it's own limitations and
extensions, which our group adheres to. I've published many extensions which
are available on my web site. See the the addresses below for more. With some
more significant work, DSII rules can even suit WWII and WWI combat as
described by some other peoples published vehicle conversions.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
And what if you want to change it later? People's tastes do change over time.
> Herein lies the rub: DS2 is sold as "can do anything" game. What it
Like anything that's adjustable, you have to do the adjustments or take it to
a person who can adjust it for you. It's like adjusting your car seat or your
belt!
> It suffers from the same problem I outlined with Mecha! - Yes you can
Then get them to agree before hand to the limitations. Both parties have to
agree otherwise you'll get these problems.
> And frankly, I can't really see the "designed to be customized" bit.
It's everywhere. Just use the FMA system and customise to suit. The points
system isn't customizable but can be extended.
> Do we have a formula for costing new weapon systems? Err.. no.
Decide on what weapon your new weapon is most like then use that. DEW and ALL
chits valid and short range? DFFG DEW and RED chits valid and long range? HEL
DEW and ALL chits valid and long range? HS Power Gun.
KE and some chits valid? Decide on RFAC/HVC/HKP/MDC.
> Do we have a formula for costing new movement systems? Err.. no.
What movement system is missing? Teleportation? Isn't that a bit powerful?
Steve Gibson's infantry points system had this ability!
New power system? CFE/HMT/FGP form a nice list. It's easy to insert
another power system in the middle or the ends. How about PSI? A psionic
crystal powering thought weapons? If it's more rare that FGP, cost it more
than FGP and the reverse can apply.
> Do we have a formula for costing new defensive systems? Err.. no.
Armour, Ablative, Reactive, PDS, ECM, Stealth - one of these will
fit. Energy shields are the only thing missing and there are one or two
conversions on the 'net that supply this.
> Do we have a formula for costing units based on capabilities without
Extending the existing systems is very easy. eg New AAA weapon extensions I've
already proposed on this list. See my web site for more.
> Do we have professionally published optional "genre modules" *I*
Only Jon Tuffley is the GZG DSII professional. Does he have the time and
energy to come up with an adaption you like? Probably not! After all you don't
like his earlier professional adaption of Hammer's Slammers! Most other games
companies even though very professional haven't come up with rules as good as
DSII is.
> For the record, I am not moaning.
Yes, you are moaning and you're complaining. Posing a problem to be solved is
different.
SNIP
> Then get them to agree before hand to the limitations. Both
SNIP
> It's everywhere. Just use the FMA system and customise to suit. The
> Do we have a formula for costing new movement systems? Err.. no.
Heinleinian Jump troops, for one. Grav-capable Infantry, for another.
Beyond that, I can't think of anything.
> New power system? CFE/HMT/FGP form a nice list. It's easy to
> For the record, I am not moaning.
It seems everyone is missing the point here. I may be doing the same, but at
least I am missing the point in a different way! Not all of us, alas, have the
option of playing against a regular group of opponents.
Some of us are restricted to pick-up games at the local Hobby Shop, and
you can't really go into a game like that with a bunch of improvised and
house rules. People don't like that. Frankly, you just can't expect people to
accept them without first familiarizing themselves with them.
And sometimes, not even then.... All of the solutions listed involve making
things up, and that's fine as far as it goes. However, you are going to have
to fight for every single rule change that you introduce.
And you will have to do it Every Damned Week. I don't much care for that
myself. The entire point of a "Bring and Battle" game is to be able to walk in
with your troops, sit down and start playing against
your opponent(s). And please--let's not argue the virtues of this kind
of game. They are fun, for one thing--there is something nice about
being able to pit your trrops against another's in an even fight--and
they are sometimes your only gaming option.
DSII cannot support all genres in a B&B environment. Sorry. It's a fact. That
is not a flaw in the system; it was not intended to be able to do so. You can
play anything that you like, certainly, but don't expect to be able to put up
a fair fight with a Mecha based force. The DSII system, being Hard SF, puts
them at a disadvantage from the
beginning--and rightly so, in this kind of background. But that should
not be the case in all backgrounds. And I should not be doomed to inevitable
failure just because I happen to like gaming with Battlemechs.
Which, for the record, I don't.
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Alex Shvarts, Andrew & Brian Martin wrote:
> Yes. Can it handle modern, battle tech and ultra modern? No.
I never claimed it could! Jeez. What is your fixation with adapting DSII to
everything under the sun?
I'm quite happy with one good rules set per genre. Rulebook cost is a pebble
in the pond compared to the cost of the miniatures, and if it can't be
summarized in five minutes, I don't want to play it anyway.
Now on to the meat of the things...
> Yes. That's where I got the information from. Careful reading
Bad news, Andrew. You got me started. Remember the bits of Slammers trivia you
wrote a day or two ago? Let's have a closer look:
> first used in war. Hammer's Slammers era missiles are operator
...
> the Arab Israeli wars. HS GEV tank crew deal with them in exactly the
"An alarm pinged to warn him that a laser rangefinder painted Deathdealer's
armor. The gunnery computer was already rotating the turret,
while a pulsing red highlight arrowed the source: an anti-tank missile
launched twelve-hundred meters away..." - David Drake, Rolling Hot, 1989
"post-mounted missile systems, both guided and hypervelocity" - David
Drake, The Warrior, 1991
Technically, these bits don't speak of the actual guidance mechanism, but I
submit my final bit of evidence as to *how* they are dealt with:
"Reconnaisance satellites, computer fire control, and powerguns combined to
claw *missiles* out of the air before they were dangerous.... locked defensive
weapons on the *missiles* in microseconds. And a single
light-swift tribarrel could hose any *missile* with enough fire in its
seconds of flight to disintegrate it." - David Drake, Interlude:
Supertanks, 1979 (emphasis added)
> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a old
"Hammer's vehicles were designed around the M48s and [M113] ACAVs I'd
ridden..." - David Drake, Afterword to Counting the Cost, 1987
> HS also isn't NBC capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC
"...and then the nukes, against a regiment more likely to advance
stark naked than without a nuclear-damper up!" - David Drake, The
Butcher's Bill, 1974
"'We have clearance for a nuke'" - David Drake, The Interrogation Team,
1985
"The political soldiers had naively failed to consider gas. The Slammers
introduced KD7 into the forced ventilation system, then spent three days
neutralizing the toxin..." - David Drake, Standing Down, 1979
> In David Drake's military experience, there was no terrain
"Similar weaponry was mounted on helicopters which skimmed battlefields in the
nape of the earth, protected by terrain irregularities. At the last
instant the birds could pop up to rip tanks with their missiles." -David
Drake, Interlude: Supertanks, 1979
> They didn't have PDS in the stories! Therefore it's not allowed by
Erm, isn't shooting down missiles exactly what PDS does? Fill in the
blank: If a computer-controlled tribarrel automatically tries to shoot
down an incoming missile, it is functioning as a... system.
Maybe your Drake books came from an alternate universe?
> At 12:03 AM 9/12/98 +0300, Mikko wrote:
Good points. A couple of comments to toss in:
> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a old
True, but Drake still gives the impression from the attitudes of a number
of his characters that he personally doesn't LIKE open-topped combat
cars. Although he'll tell you on the one hand that because of the greater
visibility some people are more comfortable in them than in tanks, the
protagonist will generally tell you in the same breath that those folks MUST
be crazy.
> HS also isn't NBC capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC
And also the passage in "But Loyal to His Own" where Tromp shows him video of
mass graves at a village that had been gassed. Hammer's response was "Via! I
thought you'd be pleased with the way we handled that. We considered using a
nuke and there's no way we could have kept that quiet."
Also, IIRC, in "Rolling Hot" there is a scene where a combat car goes through
a fireball or something and the combat helmets close up to provide
ventilation. One character (the reporter I guess?) isn't prepared for it and
panics for a moment when it happens.
NBC is still around, it's just that the Slammers are well equipped enough to
treat it as one more hazard of the battlefield. If they weren't they'd be out
of business in a hurry.
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Tom Sullivan wrote:
> Heinleinian Jump troops, for one. Grav-capable Infantry, for another.
> Beyond that, I can't think of anything.
Look at it the other way around: You want a movement mode that gives you a X"
basic speed over Z & Y terrain. You don't care what it's called. You don't
care whether it requires a fusion plant or not. You just want the points cost
for the ability.
> It seems everyone is missing the point here. I may be doing the same,
> but at least I am missing the point in a different way!
No Tom, you got the point all right. It just seems that some people get mighty
defensive when someone dares to suggest that GZG games might not be the best
thing since sliced hobbit and get sidetracked into minor details. I must admit
that I also get sidetracked when a posting simply can't go without a reply...
Take the Slammers advocacy: I presented it as *one* example among a dozen
or so well-known scifi backgrounds vanilla DS2/SG2 doesn't do too well.
Now we're lost arguing whether supertanks rate a PDS or not.
> Not all of us,
> Some of us are restricted to pick-up games at the local Hobby Shop,
> going to have to fight for every single rule change that you
Exactly, and it's not only with complete strangers. With the frequency I get
to play "sideboard" games, it has to be ready, playtested and working as
printed when I pull it off the shelf.
> DSII cannot support all genres in a B&B environment. Sorry. It's a
"Dirtside II is a comprehensive set of *generic* rules for simulating science
fiction battles in *virtually*ANY* background or 'future
history'." -Dirtside II back cover blurb, presumably Jon Tuffley, 1993
(emphasis added)
Maybe it's because English is a second language for me...
> From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi>
> It seems everyone is missing the point here. I may be doing the >>
same, but at least I am missing the point in a different way!
> No Tom, you got the point all right.
Hey, all right! Sometimes I amaze myself with my own adequacy.
SNIP
> "Dirtside II is a comprehensive set of *generic* rules for simulating
My first language is gibberish, so we are even on that count. Let me offer an
analogy, if I may. Long, long ago, I used to play a Superhero RPG called
"Villans and Vigilanties". The V&V system had all kinds of flaws (the tougher
you were, the more likely uyou were to be knocked unconscious, for
example....), but it was a more or less "generic"
superhero system--although it was never billed as such. Those were more
innocent days--that would allow you to re-create your favorite hero, if
you so chose. To make, say, the Human Torch you would give your character
"Flame Powers"; these would allow him to burst into flame, fly, and throw
fireballs around. Simple, eh? Compare that to the Champions RPG...in which you
would but Flight, Power Blast, etc., and define them as bursting into flame
and throwing fireballs around. Which
is better? V&V, which straightjackets you into what the writers percieve as
proper "Flame Powers", or Champions, which allows you to define "Flame Powers"
however you damned well please?
Okay, now that I have firmly defined *myself* as a geek of long standing....
DSII has already defined Mass Drivers for me, and I might not agree with
how. And yes, I know that I can just change the names, but that does not
really solve the problem, does it?
DSII is a good game. It's a great game. I have never played any microarmor
game, SF or modern, that I liked as much. But it ain't perfect. It does not
simulate all genres with equal skill, and certainly not without the use of
House Rules that are of dubious acceptability. I swear, GZG fanboys are almost
as bad as GW fanboys....
Lighten up, everyone!
Hell, all I really want out of life right now is a fantasy system that will
let me reproduce Glenn Cook's Black Company. They make the Slammers look like
a bunch of damned pansies....
You think good military SF is hard to find? Try good military fantasy.
> Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
In the older stories, HS could throw NBC at opponents, but themselves were not
protected against NBC. They had nuclear dampers, but these were clearly
expensive and weren't provided for all independent formations. Some of the
older stories showed this. They had gas shells that could be fired from OPEN
REAR howitzers, but armour and helmets that couldn't protect against gas. The
story "Rolling Hot" is from 1989! I don't have this and so can't comment. I do
know from your's and Mikko's quotes that later stories changed some of HS's
technology.
> Tom Sullivan <starkfist@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's dead right! But we do our best! To improve those dubious house rules
and get them to work right and to fit the vision. My own rules are of dubious
acceptability, but I'm working on getting them right!
> I swear, GZG fanboys are almost as bad as GW fanboys....
Embarrassed smile from NZ corner!
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Unfortunately, this laser beam rider missile system still doesn't match the
capabilities of DSII GMS, which are high speed, fire and forget, self homing
missiles. These GMS can only be defeated by ECM, PDS or armour. By the way,
the laser detector is technology being developed now to counter laser homing
missiles, like the older Hellfire missile systems. The newer Hellfire missiles
use millimeter wave (MMW) radar and are self homing. MMW Hellfire can't be
defeated by this method, except by standard DSII systems.
> "post-mounted missile systems, both guided and hypervelocity" - David
> Technically, these bits don't speak of the actual guidance mechanism,
locked
> defensive weapons on the *missiles* in microseconds. And a single
Thanks for the quote! I was going to quote it back to you! It's in the short
story collection I also have. Where it ALSO speaks about wire guided missiles.
You need to read it more carefully. The technique of firing at the operator
and the missile with main gun and MG is a technique developed by
the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli conflicts and transferred to the
Americans. David Drake has logically extended this technique to fire light
speed power guns at the missile operator, so that the operator ducks and the
missile misses.
> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a old
In the short story collection, they mention open topped combat cars
frequently. In one story, a air conditioned, fully enclosed combat car was
mentioned as being the bait to trap some enemy, while the open topped combat
cars responded to the ambushers.
> HS also isn't NBC capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC
Yes, they used Nukes and chemicals against others but themselves were not
capable of resisting it, which is what I meant to say. For example, open
topped combat cars and body armour and helmets that were not NBC resistant,
but were open construction. There is a quote in the short story collection,
where a soldier's beard is shown hanging underneath his helmet. Also, in the
short story collection, David Drake describes the open REAR howitzers.
> "The political soldiers had naively failed to consider gas. The
Also their Nuclear dampers, while not described that well, obviously weren't
cheap. They were not used by plattoons of vehicles. They seemed to be a large,
expensive item of gear. In that same story, no nuclear damper was provided to
the troops. Therefore, no nuclear protection. Therefore, as whole, HS were not
NBC capable just NBC armed.
> In David Drake's military experience, there was no terrain
-David
> Drake, Interlude: Supertanks, 1979
> They didn't have PDS in the stories! Therefore it's not allowed
Sorry, it's not shooting an incoming missile. It's shooting at the operator
and the missile while it's starting to launch. It's a logical extension of the
Israeli technique. Read further and see that the computer control is causing
the tribarrel to fire at the satellite detected launching flash, NOT at the
missile in full flight. This is significantly easier to do than to intercept a
high speed, fire and forget, missile, just before it impacts with your
vehicle. The PDS system shoots down missiles as they are about to impact NOT
as they launch.
> Maybe your Drake books came from an alternate universe?
I haven't got the latest ones where David Drake changes his technology. I've
got his older short story collection which is based on his experiences in
Vietnam, logically extended into the future. So my points were correct. HS
were not NBC capable, they had open topped combat cars and they had no PDS.
The HS genre also has no DSII GMS. Their
nuclear damper/s were expensive and not provided to all troops, only to
some troops. Another thing was mentioned in the short story collection was the
immense ranges of HS powerguns. In the first story, the powergun beams were
being shot from 20Km away at targets in the open. The HS people also mentioned
that line of sight was the only limitation for their powergun beams. Which I
think is very impressive! Imagine being able to shoot from one end of a 8'
table to the other from a vehicle on a hill!
> Tom Sullivan <starkfist@hotmail.com> wrote:
In a DSII battle with no limitations, this often devolves into a contest where
the one with the most nukes, wins. With appropriate genre limitations, the
"Bring 'n' Battle" becomes more interesting. May I suggest for limitations the
following, which are often unspoken and usually assumed by some:
1 No Nukes.
2 No Chemical or Biological weapons.
3 Vehicle design matches vehicle model.
4 A mutually agreeable point value per side.
5 Any further limitations as mutually agreeable.
6 Any further extensions as mutually agreeable.
Note that none of the above is logical, but produces fairer and more
interesting battles.
A further set of limitations that we've found that produce fairer battles:
1 If a VTOL is in HIGH mode and intends to shoot a ground target,
the target can shoot back if it's in range.
2 Off table self propelled artillery can shoot and scoot.
Other, not as important, limitations and extensions can be found at my site.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> Technically, these bits don't speak of the actual guidance mechanism,
locked
> defensive weapons on the *missiles* in microseconds. And a single
Thanks for the quote! I was going to quote it back to you! It's in the short
story collection I also have. Where it ALSO speaks about wire guided missiles.
The technique of firing at the operator and the missile with main
gun and MG is a technique developed by the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli
conflicts and transferred to the Americans. David Drake has logically extended
this technique to fire light speed power guns at the missile operator, so that
the operator ducks and the missile misses.
> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a old
The driver has overhead protection, the soldiers don't! In the short story
collection, they mention open topped combat cars frequently. In one story, a
air conditioned, fully enclosed combat car was mentioned as being the bait to
trap some enemy.
> HS also isn't NBC capable. Their rules of war didn't allow NBC
Yes, they used Nukes and chemicals against others but themselves were not
capable of resisting it, which is what I meant to say. For example, open
topped combat cars and body armour and helmets that were not NBC resistant,
but were open construction. There is a quote in the short story collection,
where a soldier's beard is shown hanging underneath his helmet. Also, in the
short story collection, David Drake describes the open REAR howitzers.
> "The political soldiers had naively failed to consider gas. The
Also their Nuclear dampers, while not described that well, obviously weren't
cheap. They were not used by plattoons of vehicles. They seemed to be a large,
expensive item of gear. In that same story, no nuclear damper was provided to
the troops. Therefore, no nuclear protection. Therefore, as whole, HS were not
NBC capable.
> In David Drake's military experience, there was no terrain
-David
> Drake, Interlude: Supertanks, 1979
> They didn't have PDS in the stories! Therefore it's not allowed
Sorry, it's not shooting an incoming missile. It's shooting at the operator
and the missile while it's starting to launch. It's a logical extension of the
Israeli technique. Read further and see that the computer control is causing
the tribarrel to fire at the satellite detected launching flash, NOT at the
missile in full flight. This is significantly easier to do than to intercept a
high speed, fire and forget, missile, just before it impacts with your
vehicle. The PDS system shoots down missiles as they are about to impact NOT
as they launch.
> Maybe your Drake books came from an alternate universe?
I haven't got the latest ones where David Drake changes his technology. I've
got his older short story collection which is based on his experiences in
Vietnam, logically extended into the future.
> ---- mikko wrote:
> Technically, these bits don't speak of the actual guidance mechanism,
locked
> defensive weapons on the *missiles* in microseconds. And a single
aha! so the top-mounted cannon doubles as PDS. this makes sense - the
heart of a pds is the fire control. we have already seen a proposal to
make ADS an extension of ordinary weapons, so that we can have, eg+iirc,
ADS/2-HEL/2, ie and ADS based on a twin HEL/2. we extend this to point
defence as well. it all seems quite obvious really:
(1) you have some sort of weapon something of mass 2 or smaller, ie
(where XXX is any weapon system) XXX/1, GMS/L, LAD, APSW, *on its own*
in a turret (eg if you have an MDC/3 in a turret, you can't use your
coaxial RFAC/1 as PDS - the turret must weigh twenty tonnes!). you might
want to exclude HKP, and the list-proposed LVC (low velocity cannon).
HVCs are excluded by the fact that you can't get them in size 1. also,
GMS/L and LAD are essentially the same sort of thing anyway; maybe it
turns out that LAD is really a PDS/GMS/L?
(2) a PDS fire control unit. this comes in basic, enhanced and superior, for
some points (and probably mass) (the details are left as an
excercise to the reader :-), and turns one specified weapon mount into a
pds. the pds can either be in air-defence mode or anti-surface mode,
like ADS.
Also, i think that we need to be able to have multiple turrets on one vehicle,
so that the PDS weapon can be on its own. although i don't
think the rules ever say so explicitly, this should just be allocated +
costed as a normal turret (ie the RFAC/1 in a turret on the roof of the
main turret takes up 3 mass).
most vehicles will want to use their free APSW as their PDS weapon, as (a)
they don't need it most of the time and (b) it is free anyway. this would
explain why most tanks (without a decent weapon dedicated to PDS, only the
APSW) are still vulnerable to missiles to some degree. this
also allows us to derive the mass and pv of the PDFCS - it is the mass
and pv of the PDSs given in DS2.
i am not sure exactly what this improved PDS would do, but having a
PGN/1 on the case would, i feel, give you more security than an APSW.
> > They didn't have PDS in the stories! Therefore it's not allowed
exactly. if the mountain will not come to mohammed, mohammed will go to the
mountain.
> Maybe your Drake books came from an alternate universe?
now, now: let's keep this civil!
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Tom Sullivan wrote:
> > that myself. The entire point of a "Bring and Battle" game is to be
> > able to walk in with your troops, sit down and start playing against
> > your opponent(s). And please--let's not argue the virtues of this
> > being able to pit your trrops against another's in an even
in part, this is why the web is useful and what this list is for. if a
supplement for (say) hammer's slammer's is written, and most people on
the list who read/analyse/try it like it, then it becomes a de facto
standard. you can print it out, along with some credentials to prove
it's popularity, and take it along. hey presto, you have a pre-writtem,
pre-debugged, pre-approved quasi-official supplement to use.
the big and valid objection is that often, and in the case of HS especially,
the genre background has some assumptions that are very
different from DS2. whilst you could probably use an LVC-equipped
company against someone using vanilla DS2 without trouble, using HS supertanks
with HS superPDS will wipe out GMS altogether, and GMS is an important part of
most vanilla DS2 armies.
this is because the HS SPDS is not a generic system - it is a system
highly specific to its genre. that you cannot take an HS army to a
bring'n'battle where other players are fielding vanilla armies is not a
fault of DS2 - it is impossible in *any* system, because it simply does
not make any sense. in the vanilla genre, GMS is useful; in the HS genre it is
not. both of these genres cannot be in use at the same time.
if you want to play HS, you will need to arrange it ahead of time. go into the
hobby shop, find the bloke who runs the games, show him the supplement and ask
him if you can have an HS game. he will put up a notice, or tell the players,
and make sure they can get their hands on the rules (why not put a copy in
your local library?), and they will all turn up prepared. thus, you may play
HS. sorted.
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Tom Sullivan wrote:
> My first language is gibberish, so we are even on that count. Let me
> flaws (the tougher you were, the more likely uyou were to be knocked
Which
> is better? V&V, which straightjackets you into what the writers
I'm a Champions kind of guy, though I never actually played it... unless
you're simulating real history (or well-known fictional setting, in
which case you should say as much), it's the hard game stats which should form
the basis of any points cost.
However, I'm a realist. Ofcourse DSII can't cover everything. It claims it
can, though, and I bought on the premise that it might be able to cover the
kinds of games I might want to play. Turns out it can't (without major
work). No biggie, it's a good read and has a number of good ideas --
which
is a lot better than most of the dust-collectors on my game shelf.
It just pisses me off that it's apparently somehow MY FAULT that I don't like
the genre DSII covers or that I don't feel like adapting DSII to Monopoly.
> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> in part, this is why the web is useful and what this list is for. if a
A very nice idea. It's just that while almost everyone can think of new rules,
very few people can or bother to properly playtest and analyze the
new rules -- especially as far as to come up with a justified points
cost (not just one extrapolated or pulled out of thin air).
Most net.addons to games seem to stall at the "try if you like it" stage.
> this is because the HS SPDS is not a generic system - it is a system
I can not agree. Playing *in* the Slammers universe does NOT necessarily
mean playing *with* Hammer's Slammers (or the top-notch tech they have).
Take the indig forces in the final battle of The Warrior. They were warring
before either merc force showed up with powerguns and other fancy
stuff. You might want to play pure hashemites vs. whoever-they-were.
These forces *did* utilize GMS, apparently to some effect.
Perhaps the change in warfare brought in by the appearance of the mercs is
*exactly* the thing you want to "simulate", playing some battles with indig
only forces and then some with merc support added.
Are you suggesting that the first battles are to be fought with rules options
A and the later ones with options B? Where's the learning experience in that?
No. The right answer is to properly cost the Slammers SPDS (and other
equipment). Yes, they are practically immune to GMS, but they should pay
through the nose for that ability.
Once you get the points cost right, there's no reason Slammers couldn't play
in a pickup game.
If they still get to face a GMS-only force, well, isn't combined arms,
variety and all that exactly what the realism advocates always keep preaching
about?
> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Alex Shvarts, Andrew & Brian Martin wrote:
> >"An alarm pinged to warn him that a laser rangefinder painted
Actually, the older *stories* don't use missiles at all.
> In this later story, he's upgraded his missile technology!
Doesn't matter. It's still the same Slammerverse. Maybe you should read all
the stories before you draw conclusions. Anyway, the stories are *not* written
in chronological order. I can, and will if needed, find a Drake quote to that
effect.
Consider the story "Standing Down", clearly storywise the last "Slammers"
story (before they turned into Frisian Defense Force for The Sharp End), was
written in 1979.
> But the way that the tank
I really hate to do this again, but did I make you actually read the passage
in question? I didn't quote *all* of it, but I will if that's the only way to
get through to you.
I don't have my books with me, but if you had read it, you'd know Birdie
expected the "APFC" belt to stop the actual missile. Aiming at the shooter had
a purely punitive function.
I will quote the rest of it if you really want to.
> Unfortunately, this laser beam rider missile system still doesn't
I could also dig up Birdie's death scene from the same story, where he's
done in by a quite self-homing artillery round -- but you'd just argue
it doesn't count as high speed so I give up.
> missile system, but of two separate missile systems. This clearly
So?
> Thanks for the quote! I was going to quote it back to you! It's in
The guidance method, which I did note but chose to omit as irrelevant as it is
quite clearly indicated that it is the MISSILE that's being shot down, not the
operator.
> >> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a
Let's see. You said: "HS combat cars were open topped because they were based
on a old Soviet apc which was open topped." David Drake said: "Hammer's
vehicles were designed around the M48s and [M113] ACAVs I'd
ridden..."
I wonder which of you is the better authority on the subject?
Where do the words "soviet apc" appear in Drake's sentence? And, btw, which
soviet APC would that be? M3 halftrack?
Besides, I think the ACAV is open topped unlike most other M113 variants. And
yes, I can dig that up too.
> The driver has overhead protection, the soldiers don't!
Actually, a roof over the fighting compartment is mentioned in Rolling Hot.
Not very thick, though.
> Yes, they used Nukes and chemicals against others but themselves
Communication tends to be easier if you actually say what you mean to say. I
have no psychic ability to telepathically know what you meant.
> Three days neutralising it. No NBC protection equipment! Not that
Do you really want me to dig up quotes about the helmet filter system?
> Also their Nuclear dampers, while not described that well,
Therefore, as
> whole, HS were not NBC capable just NBC armed.
Obviously not cheap? Would you mind backing up your allegations with some sort
of reference?
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the device has some sort of range and
you don't need to equip every individual tank with one?
Can you find a reference where a Slammer is cursing his lack of nuke
protection, fearing the mushroom cloud?
> Yes, there were helicopters, but no planes that could fly NOE in
But you said "NOE helicopters"...
> Sorry, it's not shooting an incoming missile. It's shooting at the
We obviously don't share the same comprehension of written English.
I give up. Maybe I should attend the Phil Barker Writing School for
Dimwitted 8-year Olds or something...
Let's just agree our visions of the Slammerverse are not identical, which is
anyway irrelevant to the original discussion.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Read the interlude: "Supertanks". I quote:
"Wire-guided missiles..."
> In this later story, he's upgraded his missile technology!
That's right, the stories aren't written in chronological order. But in the
stories and novels written later in the 1980's, David Drake changed HS
technology!
> But the way that the tank
Yes I did read it. Here are the two paragraphs, please read them carefully:
"Successful protection for the supertanks went beyond armor and speed.
Wire-guided missiles are still faster, and their shaped-charge warheads
can
burn holes in any practical thickness of any conceivable material - if
they are allowed to hit. Reconnaissance satellites, computer fire control, and
powerguns combined to claw missiles out of the air before they were dangerous.
The satellites spotted missile launchers, usually before they fired and never
later than the moment of ignition. Fire control computers, using data from the
satellites, locked defensive weapons on the missiles in
microseconds. And a single light-swift tribarrel could hose any missile
with enough fire in its seconds of flight to disintegrate it."
"Hand-launched, unguided rockets - buzzbombs - were another problem,
and in some ways a more dangerous one despite their short range and small
bursting charges. Individual infantrymen fired them from such a short range
that not even a computer had time enough to lay a gun on the little rockets.
But even here there was an answer - beyond the impossible one of killing
every enemy before he came within 200 meters."
See that the aim point for the tri-barrel is not the missile itself,
but the launch point where the missile is accelerating out of the launcher.
The satellites are spotting launchers, not missiles. The computer aims the
tri-barrel at the launcher which happens to be in line of sight as it
guides the missile. The tribarrel is fired repeatedly, hosing the launch point
and along the missile path. Thus killing or causing the crew to duck, causing
the missile to self destruct. If the system is lucky, it might even hit the
missile! A PDS system goes for the missile itself, not the launcher. Think of
the US Navy Phalanx system, which uses radar to track incoming missiles and
it's own shells. The control system guide the gun so the shells hit the
missile. As can be seen from the above quote, the HS genre doesn't use or have
PDS or ECM.
> I don't have my books with me, but if you had read it, you'd know
Here is a similar quote, from the interlude, "Supertanks": "Many armoured
vehicles were already fitted with a band of
anti-personnel directional mines just above the skirts. Radar detonated
the mines when an object came within a set distance. Their blast of shrapnel
was designed to stop infantry at close quarters. With only slight
modification, the system could be adapted against buzzbombs. It was not
perfect, since the pellets were far less destructive than powergun bolts, and
the mines could not be used in close terrain which would itself set them off.
Still,
buzzbombs were apt to be ill-aimed in the chaos of battle, and a tank's
armour could shrug off all but a direct hit by the small warheads." And from
the story, "The Butcher's Bill": "Danny saw the brief flash as the rocket
leaped from the shoulder of the other mercenary. It whirred over Two Star and
the sergeant, exploded cataclysmically against a spike of Starhome still
rising on the other side." From the point of view of Danny, he saw the
buzzbomb moving and could track it with his eyes. Definitely subsonic. A few
sentences further on, and Danny hoses the mercenary buzzbomb firer.
In other stories, the APFC charges are turned on and stop buzz-bomb
attacks.
> Unfortunately, this laser beam rider missile system still doesn't
Self homing artillery rounds are another indication that David Drake changed
the HS technology in later stories. In "Hangman", the AP artillery rounds are
bomblets that fire shrapnel, for example: "Pritchard could imagine the carnage
among the unprotected calliope crews when the shrapnel whirred through them."
These artillery rounds are clearly unguided. In an earlier story, the
artillery shells have height sensors that can cause them to explode above the
ground instead of on impact. These are clearly conventional artillery shells.
> missile system, but of two separate missile systems. This clearly
The slow missile is clearly wireguided or laser designated. The fast missile
is unguided.
> Thanks for the quote! I was going to quote it back to you! It's
It's quite clear from the quotes above that the aim point is the launcher as
it fires it's missile. Not the missile itself. As the tank moves, the missile
will turn and track it as directed by the launcher. Therefore you need an
active sensor, like radar, or an optical camera system to direct the
antimissile fire. Clearly HS doesn't have this. They only fire at the
launcher.
> >> HS combat cars were open topped because they were based on a
Well, I've looked it up in my "The History of the Vietnam War". On page 36,
top right, is shown a picture of a M113 ACAV. It clearly shows three soldiers
in the rear sitting on top of the hatch to the rear of the M113 ACAV. The ACAV
in question shows red "13" on a yellow triangle. This quite clearly shows that
the M113 ACAV did have hatches as I said. The Soviet APC's of the 1950's were
open topped and also formed inspiration for the
combat cars. These APC's were the BTR-152 6Ã6 and the BTR-60P 8Ã8 (not
the
BTR-60PB, which is fully enclosed). The BTR-60P had triple machine guns
like the M113 ACAV.
> The driver has overhead protection, the soldiers don't!
As I said early, his technology changed through the stories and novels. I
quote from the Hammer's Slammers story, "But Loyal to his Own". "There were
six vehicles in the patrol, all but the second one open
combat cars. That was a command car, same chassis and ground-effect
curtain,
but enclosed, you see? Better commo gear and an air-conditioned
passenger compartment...." And from "Under the Hammer":
"The two men standing above the waist-high armour of the rear
compartment.." Therefore, NO roof in earlier stories! You say there was a roof
in "Rolling Hot". Therefore, David Drake changed his technology in later
novels!
> Yes, they used Nukes and chemicals against others but themselves
I'm sorry, please forgive me. At the time, I thought I was writing clearly,
but clearly I wasn't at that time.
> Three days neutralising it. No NBC protection equipment! Not that
Please do. But these would be from the later stories where David Drake changed
his technology! Read the story "Cultural Conflict" where I took this example
from. Notice how, in the story, the soldiers move the gas artillery shell
gingerly? No one has NBC protection!
> Also their Nuclear dampers, while not described that well,
Therefore, as
> whole, HS were not NBC capable just NBC armed.
Read the story, "Cultural Conflict". The force was on a isolated island and
the entire force composition is described as it's completely destroyed by the
aliens. Read the interlude, "Table of Organization and Equipment, Hammer's
Slammers". Is there a nuclear damper mentioned? No.
> Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the device has some sort of
The suppression device is clearly area effect but only of a limited area. No
tank, combat car or command car was armed with one as far as I could tell.
> Can you find a reference where a Slammer is cursing his lack of nuke
Firebase Bolo in "Cultural Conflict" where they fear what kind of response the
Federation might have when they fire off their artillery. The soldiers are
scared they might be attacked with GEV tanks. The sergeant worries about the
kind of artillery response. Read the story, "The Butcher's Bill". "Danny was
trembling worse than before the botched attack." Just after the tank platoon
had destroyed five cargo planes, one carrying fissionables. Clearly he was
nervous.
> Yes, there were helicopters, but no planes that could fly NOE in
Not quite. The Helos in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli conflict could
and did fly NOE. Planes didn't at that time.
> Sorry, it's not shooting an incoming missile. It's shooting at
Well, you haven't been reading the old stories like I have.
> I give up. Maybe I should attend the Phil Barker Writing School for
No, PLEASE don't do that! :-) I can't understand his one sentence
paragraphs with no examples! :-)
By the way, insulting others isn't nice.
> Let's just agree our visions of the Slammerverse are not identical,
My points were right. Powerguns and GMS don't mix. No points value will ever
make it possible to game with Powerguns and GMS in a "Bring 'n' Battle" game.
Combat cars were open topped. Only command cars were enclosed and
airconditioned. The Hammer's Slammers genre doesn't have PDS or ECM and don't
have DSII GMS. The Hammer's Slammers genre does have wireguided missile
systems and, in later stories, has laser designated, beam riding missile
systems. The HS easily destroyed these systems by attacking the launcher as it
fired. Not the missile in flight like a PDS does. The HS genre has DSII
buzzbombs which can be defeated with DSII APFCs.
> Tom Anderson <tom.anderson@altavista.net> wrote:
you can print it out, along with some credentials to prove it's popularity,
and take it along. hey presto, you have a pre-writtem, pre-debugged,
pre-approved quasi-official supplement to use.
Yes, predesigned genres specifying what's allowed and what disallowed,
together with compatible extensions and limitations are an appropriate way to
convert DSII to suit a chosen genre.
> the big and valid objection is that often, and in the case of HS
Actually, the HS missiles aren't DSII GMS. They are wireguided missiles in the
early systems and laser designated (incorrectly spoken of by David
Drake as laser rangefinder) in later stories/novels. DSII GMS would
actually wipe out a HS supertank army, because they can't have PDS or ECM. The
superPDS you imply is actually an extension of the Israeli technique. See that
the computer control is causing the tribarrel to fire at the satellite
detected launching flash, NOT at the missile in full flight. This is
significantly easier to do than to intercept a high speed, fire and forget,
missile, just before it impacts with your vehicle. The PDS system shoots down
missiles as they are about to impact NOT as they launch.
> this is because the HS SPDS is not a generic system - it is a system
This is totally correct! GMS are not appropriate to the HS genre. Neither are
HS Powerguns with line of sight range appropriate to a "Bring 'n' Battle".
Neither genres can be in use at the same time.
> if you want to play HS, you will need to arrange it ahead of time. go
Absolutely wonderful suggestion. Thanks for your comments!
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Then you need rules to adequately simulate wire guided missile systems and
laser designated missile systems. You still need to disallow DSII GMS.
> Perhaps the change in warfare brought in by the appearance of the mercs
The "you" here is "Mikko" not "Tom".
> Are you suggesting that the first battles are to be fought with rules
Actually Tom didn't say that! You did. Don't put words in his mouth or
text in his e-mail! The learning experience is in finding out the
difference
between wire-guided and laser-designated missile systems and fire and
forget DSII GMS.
> No. The right answer is to properly cost the Slammers SPDS (and other
Sorry, HS doesn't have PDS or ECM. They are vulnerable to DSII GMS.
Properly costing wire-guided and laser-designated missiles is more the
issue.
> Once you get the points cost right, there's no reason Slammers couldn't
Appropriate limitations would still have to apply to the opponent
forces. Like no GMS, only wire-guided or laser designated missile
systems.
> If they still get to face a GMS-only force, well, isn't combined arms,
A GMS armed force facing a HS genre force would slaughter the HS force. There
would be no laser designators aimed at the HS force. GMS would be
fired from VTOLs performing pop-ups. The GMS would be coming in at
supersonic speeds with no noticeable launching flash. The HS force would not
be able to knock down the GMS as their satellites won't be able to detect the
launcher's flash in time before the missile strikes. Remember that, in DSII,
turret down and hull down modifiers don't apply versus GMS attacks. Only ECM
and PDS can defend, due to the speed the missile travels at. Also remember
that while iridium protects well against powergun shots, it defends the same
as normal armour against shaped charge warheads.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
What are the kinds of games that you want to play? How about letting us know
so we can all work on it (except for "Bring 'n' Battle" and accurately costed,
wargames point systems)?
> It just pisses me off that it's apparently somehow MY FAULT that I
We could use Monopoly to simulate a very large city encounter battle. You play
a merchant and a general. Leading to: "Assault on Mayfair", "Jail
Break", and similar amusing urban/army encounters! :-)!
What is various people's obession with the form of game called
"bring'n'battle". I've only seen this on paper (as in name of scenario) with
Warzone and Warhammer 40K. The way it is being used
leads me to believe it refers to one-offs done with total strangers
with intention of forming any ongoing gaming groups. Huh? Once you get a group
going, even if no single person shows up two weeks in a row, you can start
posting house rules whereever you are playing the games. People who wish to
show up and bring their stuff to fight
one-offs are generally more than welcome, but it is up to them to
ensure their forces are in compliance with the group's house rules. If the
house rules aren't properly balanced, you'll find that out rather quickly and
they will be changed.
Again, maybe I'm just lucky in that I game with adults who don't take pushing
around little metal toys THAT seriously.
[in part this is a reply to mikko; i missed his earlier post. sorry.]
> ---- andrew martin wrote:
true.
> >Take the indig forces in the final battle of The Warrior. They were
maybe, or (going out on a limb here) you need to seriously beef up PDS or ECM.
although the rulebook says DS2 missiles are smart
fire-and-forget, the rules themselves do not. they just say that they
are missiles; it is not possible to infer smartness from the rules alone. this
is a slightly odd point, but what i mean is that you don't necessarily need to
change the GMS rules but add new interception rules.
how about APSW can be used as ECM by firing it at the firer? any suppressed
infantry unit automatically loses any missiles in flight? not
quite sure how to extend this to vehicle-launched GMS.
incidentally, how was this handled in HS? what if i outfitted a slammer panzer
with ATGW: you would have to engage me with your main gun, and if i had proper
training i would ignore it and let my driver try and evade. and hope i killed
you first.
of course, this doesn't help with bring-n-battle, but i stand by my
earlier statement on that.
> >Perhaps the change in warfare brought in by the appearance of the
ah, but on the internet, how can you be so sure ... :-) i think this
would be an interesting campaign.
> Actually Tom didn't say that! You did. Don't put words in his
suddenly andrew seems to have become my big brother :-) i feel a little
less manly for this, but i can take it. it's the 90s.
> >No. The right answer is to properly cost the Slammers SPDS (and other
[i assume this means to cost them in the context of regular DS2 and thus
allow them in any DS2 games]
no. this would mean either (a) properly costing every single piece of sf
warfare equipment ever invented, in case anyone wanted to use it, or (b)
providing a points-cost calculating system which would work for
anything. i don't think either are practical. besides, the value of a piece of
equipment often depends on the other equipment in use.
unless you want PV on the basis of real material cost, but that is impossible
as real costs vary from universe to universe. the reason HS
never fase DS2 F+F GMS is that electronics are expensive in the HS
universe. they are cheap in the DS2 universe or any reasonable extension of
our modern world (free digital cellphone when you open a Barclays student
account, anyone?).
> Properly costing wire-guided and laser-designated missiles is more the
fair enough. if you brought HS forces into a vanilla DS2 game (eg at a
B+B) you would get smoked by GMS which is a century more advanced than
what the HS are prepared for.
> Appropriate limitations would still have to apply to the opponent
absolutely not! if you want to take a no-ECM no-PDS HS force up against
GMS-armed vanilla DS2 in a B+B, you deserve everything you get.
> >If they still get to face a GMS-only force, well, isn't combined
Also
> remember that while iridium protects well against powergun shots, it
right. what i said, only said first and in more detail.
> Tom Anderson <tom.anderson@altavista.net> wrote:
That's dead right! :-)
> >Take the indig forces in the final battle of The Warrior. They were
ECM and PDS defences and no turret or hull down modifiers means that DSII GMS
are smart, fire and forget missiles. With wire guided missiles, ECM would be
ineffective as the human eye guides the missile. Turret down and hull down
modifiers should be additional
defence versus wire-guided missiles.
> this is a slightly odd point, but what i mean is that you don't
Yes. I've already written some. They will be up on my site soon. Basically,
because the missile speed is slow, any opposing unit can interrupt the
launcher's COMBAT action. The missile launch flash is detected and any
opposing, unactivated, unit can shoot at the launcher with direct
fire main gun and/or APSW.
> how about APSW can be used as ECM by firing it at the firer? any
Yes. Using a combat active to eliminate the infantry team or causing a
supression result (the infantry ducks and can't continue guiding the
missile). Using a combat action to hit the launching vehicle/bunker and
causing damage or better (worse for launcher!) with main gun fire.
> incidentally, how was this handled in HS? what if i outfitted a slammer
and hope i killed you first. The missile launcher has to stay in line of sight
of the target. No
pop-up manouevers! Im my rules, I've said that any hit that causes
damage (or worse) to the launching vehicle, causes the missile to miss. I've
also said that the launching vehicle can't move while the missile is on the
way. This would mean that the defence die is effectively D1. This might be a
little unfair, though. If we assume that the wire leading to the missile is
reasonably strong, the launching vehicle could defend using it's normal
signature die. This would mean less rule changes.
> of course, this doesn't help with bring-n-battle, but i stand by my
As do I.
> >Perhaps the change in warfare brought in by the appearance of the
Yes. It would!
> Actually Tom didn't say that! You did. Don't put words in his
I'm sorry for making you feel less manly! Let's have a hug! [ ] :-)
> >No. The right answer is to properly cost the Slammers SPDS (and
providing a points-cost calculating system which would work for
anything. i don't think either are practical. besides, the value of a piece of
equipment often depends on the other equipment in use. Yes. This would indeed
be impractical. See the Fleet Book (which I've just got!) where Jon Tuffley
gives his opinion of wave guns and other super weapons.
> unless you want PV on the basis of real material cost, but that is
they are cheap in the DS2 universe or any reasonable extension of our modern
world (free digital cellphone when you open a Barclays student account,
anyone?). Yes. That's exactly right. I've always regarded the points cost as
more
an indication of the effort/money/tech a nation/country has to spend to
get
the vehicle/troops etc.
> Properly costing wire-guided and laser-designated missiles is more
you would get smoked by GMS which is a century more advanced than what the HS
are prepared for. Yes.
> Appropriate limitations would still have to apply to the opponent
Yes, in a B+B that's exactly right! I was intending this for the HS
genre.
> >If they still get to face a GMS-only force, well, isn't combined
Remember
> that, in DSII, turret down and hull down modifiers don't apply versus
Yes.
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> > >Perhaps the change in warfare brought in by the appearance of the
Actually, it is "you" in the passive sense.
As we have FaF missiles now, isn't it rather likely they will be available in
the HS universe. Aren't David Drakes
novels suffering from the 2001 / Space 1999 syndrome.
However my take is that the Panzers firecontrol is good enough to effectively
be a PDS and so can intercept the missile being
FaF, beam-riding, wire guided, ballistic. Also don't forget the
frag charges as a PDS.
Also you can use a Calliope as an ADS if you expect mass GMS attacks.
> Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, one could assume that tech advances normally and let there be fire and
forget missiles in the HS genre. But I would prefer to play the genre rather
than try to anticipate the author. It's far easier to ban GMS and develop
rules for wireguided and laser designated missiles. See my latest rules on my
site for more.
> However my take is that the Panzers firecontrol is good enough
While the Panzer's fire control is good enough to control the tank barrel so
that it can point accurately at targets up to 20Km (or line of sight) away, in
all cases, they seem to require satellite recon for aim points for far away
targets, missile launchers and aerial targets. The satellites can't pick up
missiles, only their bright launch flares. To destroy a missile inflight,
requires a radar or camera sensor. The HS had radar for counterbattery
purposes, but it seemed to be on a large vehicle, perhaps a modified combat
car or hover truck. So the panzer's powerguns can't be treated as a PDS. Note
that in one story, the Panzer's turreted powerguns were fired at high altitude
cargo aeroplanes in coordination with central control. This would mean that
powerguns can be used to attack aerospace craft that weren't using Nap of
Earth (NOE) flight.
> Also, don't forget the frag charges as a PDS.
Well, actually they're Anti-Personel Fragmentation Charges (APFCs)
as
described in the DSII rulebook. They defend against "buzz-bomb" attack
quite well, once switched on. But it's quite clear they aren't expected to
work versus fire and forget GMS. However, the concept of "Active Armour" is
one that needs development for DSII. Reactive armour works by exploding as a
missile hits, disrupting the formation of the shaped charge molten jet. This
fails versus tandem charge missile warheads. Active armour works a bit like
APFC charges versus buzzbombs, in that the charge goes off before the GMS
hits. The idea being that tandem charge missile warheads are destroyed
simultaneously before being activated.
> Also you can use a Calliope as an ADS if you expect mass GMS attacks.
Provided it was equipped with radar to track the GMS, this becomes much
like the standard GMS rules for ZAD/ADS, but with horizon limited range.
> -----Original Message-----