I'm reading COL Macgregor's latest, Transformation Under Fire.
I recommend it for anyone interested in modern or post-modern warfare.
I have some problems with it, but first the purely game mechanical question:
Taifun: Size 1 Armor 0 FGP VTOL 1xHeavy Artillery Payload Point Cost: 68
Predator, Armed Size 1 Armor 0 FGP Aerospace
GMS/H/Sup
Point Cost: 113
The Taifun (in service with German Army next year) is a UAV with a 20kg shaped
charge warhead so that it can turn itself into a Kamikaze
for an appropriately high-value target. I chose a heavy artillery
payload as the closest approximation of this under DSII rules. More
accurately, rule that when the UAV hits the effects of a MAK Heavy Artillery
warhead is applied to the target vehicle only. This is for things like CPs and
ADS vehicles. Although, really, a 58 point VTOL for a 458 point Size 5 tank
isn't a bad trade either.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/taifun/
The Predator we are all familliar with. And with GMS/H it outranges
the purely tactical ADS systems normally present on the DSII table.
Thoughts?
G'day
You know more about this stuff than I do, but seems reasonable to me.
How are you actually going to play them on the table? Any extra/special
rules?
Cheers
I have to wonder if it's not a bit like nano-tech; tends to be uber to
the point of making the gaming pointless. Unless, like nanos, you just say my
itty bitty robots will meet your itty bitty robots, and should one
prevail, that side wins. In case of stalemate, macro-machines have to
get dirty.
Either that, or all shells are that smart, but so's the counter measures,
doesn't match the granularity of the game, Bob's your uncle, where's my
O.G.R.E.?
Is this vacc-head out of line?
The_Beast
> I have to wonder if it's not a bit like nano-tech; tends to be uber
No -- just limit the supply of killer UAVs, give the other side more
troops, whatever. Quality on one side, mass on the other.
Also, keep in mind that killer UAVs won't always hit - they can be shot
down on the way by overwatch or ADS.
In order to make them "kamikazi" units, I would make sure that they were
well within their own DFO blast zone, like, put them as close to landed as you
can, then drop. That way they kill themselves in the process, as would happen
with the unit they're based on.:)
John
--On Saturday, July 30, 2005 8:05 PM -0400 Laserlight
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> I have to wonder if it's not a bit like nano-tech; tends to be uber
> On 7/31/05, John K. Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
It makes the ADS environment a much more important factor in the game.
In fact, that's one thing I'd like to see in DSIII--an Air Defense
environment like in SGII which abstracts the effects of air superiority and
theater air defense systems. After all, a task force commander would have
absolutely zero control over air superiority fighters or Patriot batteries,
but they would affect his battlespace.
> In order to make them "kamikazi" units, I would make sure that they
Well, I gave them an artillery marker with no way to deliver
it--didn't buy the artillery system. So then they just smack into the
target.
Although simulating a 20kg shaped charge should probably be a
seven-chit draw with GMS validity. :)
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I recommend it for anyone interested in modern or post-modern warfare.
IIRC the Taifun uses a HEAT warhead which needs to be extremely close to
the target to have much effect (within a few meters), rather than the
100+
meters of today's MAK-style artillery (SADARM, BONUS etc.). If I'm
correct about that the target's PDS, ADS and Reactive Armour should all have
some effect against it during its attack run. By classifying it as MAK rather
than as GMS/(H or bigger), you prevent all three of them from having any
effect at all during its attack (ADS could shoot it down *before* attacking,
but not *while* attacking). Was this intentional?
> The Predator we are all familliar with. And with GMS/H it outranges
The purely tactical ADS systems normally present on the DS2 table have
pitifully short weapon ranges compared even to today's equally purely tactical
SPAAGs, and even less compared to today's MANPADS and
vehicle-mounted SAMs.
Regards,
> On 7/31/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
The intent of these things is precisely that--to take on hordes of bad
guys with a numerically inferior group force. Unfortunately past a certain
point quantity just doesn't compensate all that much. Both sides need both
high tech weapons and the appropriate countermeasures.
You can have a nearly infinite number of T-72s, and a single US UA
would lunch on them, never mind a Combat Maneuver Group like the ones COL
Macgregor proposes. For one thing, his Strike Battalion would include 3x8 gun
batteries of tube artillery (Paladins), a battery of MLRS and a Taifun battery
with 300 Taifuns. Not more than a fraction of them would be in the air at one
time, due to limitations on
controllers, but that's enough to break a old-style Soviet Tank
Division.
For instance, putting rules for GMS/AA systems into DSIII would help.
Split out the cost of launcher/gun system vs. the control systems, and
allow batteries to be controlled by a single C2 system with data from any air
search system.
Make LADs meaningful, including the ability for vehicle-mounted LADs
to link into ADS fire control networks.
Allow auxillary energy weapon systems, RFACs, and APSWs to be linked into ADA
networks at reduced effectiveness.
Rethink ranges for all AD systems in the game. Unclassified range for Stingers
is 10 km. An LAD with a 1.2 km range represents what?
Seriously revamp capacity costs for ADS. I mean, you can put six Surface
Launcher AMRAAMs on a HMMWV. You also need another vehicle for the radar and
another for the fire control center, but each radar
and FC center can handle a half-dozen launcher vehicles.
Americans tend to forget about air defense, mostly because we have never
fought a nation capable of contesting our control of the sky
(other than local, short-term effects caused by concentrated efforts
of the entire Luftwaffe). In fact, since 1945 the ADA branch has NEVER
fulfilled its designed purpose. And the USAF has only shot down
a grand total of 1,078 aircraft in its post-WWII history. Of those,
nearly 90% were downed in the Korean War (894). But against a
high-tech opponent these things must be considered.
I'm sure other ideas can be tossed out here, especially when OA gets ahold of
this idea.
As I've said before, modern warfare is not a democratic process. Quality, and
quality alone, counts. Political points can be scored, terrorist tactics can
be effective, but if you come out and play
hardball with a first-rate Army, you loose. Period, end of
discussion, and it doesn't MATTER how many troops you bring to bear.
Well-trained professionals handling technically advanced weapons
systems, integrated into a combined arms and joint system of systems will
defeat any concievable (and most inconcievable) tactics based on hordes, be
they bodies or inexpensive obsolete tanks.
Interesting wargaming scenarios have to be between units of similar
capability, or they have to be fudged and handwaving performed to take
away the high-tech force's advantages.
> On 7/31/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> IIRC the Taifun uses a HEAT warhead which needs to be extremely close
> than as GMS/(H or bigger), you prevent all three of them from having
I don't think reactive armor will have quite the same effect on a 20kg warhead
as on a smaller warhead.
Besides which, if I were redesigning DSIII I'd ditch reactive armor
all together. Given the percentage of modern first-line ATGM systems
with dual warheads and/or top attack capabilities, I don't see that as
still being viable in a couple centuries.
I could see letting PDS shoot it down, though. How about we cost the
warhead as a Heavy MAK round, but resolve effects as a larger GMS/H?
> The purely tactical ADS systems normally present on the DS2 table have
Yeah, I know. I already wrote a list of things I think need to be done to
revamp the Air Defense system in DSIII.
> At 3:16 PM +0200 7/31/05, John Atkinson wrote:
How about the Missile Air Defense system I proposed a while back? Admittedly I
never playtested it, so I don't know if the numbers work out balance wise...
http://www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/minis/ds2/dsnw.html
There are several systems in modern use that engage aircraft on a tactical
scale of the battle. Not to be confused with theatre air
defense systems that reach 20+ miles like
Patriot, SM2 or SA-6, these systems are employed
closer to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area).
Think of a mobile Hawk System, Rapier or SA-6 for
the modern equivalent of a MAD.
Missile Air Defense Systems (MADS) work similar to the local air defense
systems. In that they engage any VTOL or aerospace fighter that comes within
their range. They are not however effective at firing at smaller targets like
GMSH's.
MADS of course have a much longer range, 120" if you play on really big tables
and want a finite range, otherwise assume the table top. Effectively they can
engage any aircraft that enters the area of the table that isn't down in the
"weeds". VTOL's in low mode are not valid targets.
A MADS takes quite a bit of room. They require a
search radar, tracking/guidance radar emitters
and the missiles themselves. They are thus bulky and require multiple units to
move around. A MADS system may be divided among multiple vehicles. One vehicle
will carry the search radar set
another can carry the missile launchers/guidance
set. Multiple Launcher units may be slaved off of a single Search Radar.
MADS combat works very much like ADS. Follow the rules for the ADS as far as
all questions of resolving the activation as for the reaction roll of the
aircraft in question and the opposed die rolls.
Each MADS Sensor element may support a finite number of MADS Launcher elements
in a given engagement. Basic Sensor elements may support two Launcher
elements, Enhanced may support three, Superior may support four. A MADS unit
may make as many engagements per turn as long as its sensors are still
operating. Only one Sensor element may be active for a given set of Launcher
elements. If it is destroyed by ARM fire, the MADS unit may switch over to an
alternate Sensor element if available.
Each MADS Launcher element may launch one missile. When resolving an
engagement between a MADS unit and a group of aircraft, place one missile
counter per MADS launcher available.
Aerospace craft and VTOLS may carry a PDS (at normal costs) like a normal
vehicle for defense against a MADS. They are essentially active
counter-measures like flares, chaff, decoys and
similar systems used by aircraft. ECM works as well as a counter measure.
A MADS's search and tracking radars emit radiation just like an ADS. Thus each
elements' signatures are effectively 1 larger and
Stealth/ECM systems are ineffective. The sensors
may, however, be "turned off/on" during an
opportunity fire activation as a response to an ARM being fired at it or an
aircraft making a
move. The "off/on" activation may only occur once
per turn and counts as the unit's activation. Once off, the sensors may not be
turned back on until the next turn and vice versa. The MADS unit may turn on
its sensors as a normal activation and engage aircraft normally from then out.
Note that a MADS unit may still be targeted by an ARM (Anti Radiation Missile)
when shut down as a response to an ARM fire, it is just much harder to hit
(see below under the section regarding ARMs).
A MADS unit (The Sensor element and the associated Launchers) may not fire on
the move.
The collective unit may move _or_ fire, not both.
Generally these systems need to fire from a steady location and need to be at
least halted in
order to work reliably, if not set up in a dug-in
emplacement.
An example combat would work like this: An Enhanced MADS unit is deployed in
the rear area of the battle, it has one Sensor element and two Launcher
elements. The opposing player activates a pair of aerospace fighters. The MADS
system detects the aircraft as they enter the board and the aerospace fighters
roll their reaction test to continue the attack. If they continue the attack
then the MADS system may launch one missile per Launcher element. Thus the
MADS unit launches two missiles at the intruding aircraft. An opposed die roll
is made between the targeted aircraft's ECM die and PDS die vs the MADS's die.
If the aircraft survive then they may continue their attack as normal. Most
likely they will plaster the MADS system with DFO.
The units involved in the MADS battery may be up to 6" of each other when
emplaced, otherwise the must be within 2" when under normal movement.
Damage Vality: MADS work just like regular ADS's as far as damage validity.
Range: MADS have the range of the entire table (120" for big tables)
Points Cost: (no mixing of types) Basic MADS Sensor: 200 and 5 VSP Enhanced
MADS Sensor: 300 and 10 VSP Superior MADS Sensor: 400 and 15 VSP Basic MADS
Launcher: 200 and 5 VSP Enhanced MADS Launcher: 300 and 5 VSP Superior MADS
Launcher: 400 and 15 VSP
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Seriously revamp capacity costs for ADS. I mean, you can put six
They look OK-ish as long as you only intend to fight battles set in 1991
or
earlier, but they're far too tied to DS2's ADS rules - which themselves
only really represent SPAAGs from the 1970s and earlier, ie. the kind of
AAA available during the Vietnam war - to model even the later 1990s
very well.
A few scattered comments:
> There are several systems in modern use that engage aircraft on a
Considering that even the original HAWK system had a range of 25 km, that the
later HAWK models have a range of *40* km, and that you've listed
"SA-6" both in the "MADS equivalent" *and* the
"not-to-be-confused-with-MAD" categories, I suspect that you may have to
polish your list of examples a little :-/
> MADS of course have a much longer range, 120" if you play on really big
> tables and want a finite range, otherwise assume the table top.
Today's "MADS equivalents" have a *maximum* altitude as well - typcially
around 15,000'. In order to engage targets flying higher than that, you
need the theater-level stuff.
> A MADS takes quite a bit of room. They require a search radar,
No, they don't (not if you're serious about the "120mu range" bit, anyway).
There are several "MADS equivalent" systems today which have all systems
collected on a single vehicle. They *can* be split up into multiple units, but
they don't *have* to be.
> Only one Sensor element may be active for a given set of Launcher
This implies that if the sensor is destroyed by some *other* means than ARM
fire, the MADS unit *can't* switch over to an alternate sensor element.
Intentional?
> A MADS's search and tracking radars emit radiation just like an ADS.
Thus
> each elements' signatures are effectively 1 larger and Stealth/ECM
This is one of the most 1970s bits of the entire DS2 rules set. While this was
true during the 'Nam and Yom Kippur wars, it wasn't true for Serb AA
units during the NATO bombings of Kosovo, it isn't true today, and I kinda
doubt that it'll become much truer in the future. Modern radars can play
quite a few interesting tricks on incoming ARMs, and all those tricks
definitely fall in the "ECM" category.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > IIRC the Taifun uses a HEAT warhead which needs to be extremely
DS2's model of RA vs HEAT is actually pretty good, at least for those HEATs
which don't negate the RA completely - and, of course, for those RAs
which
are designed to negate the advanced HEAT warheads' RA-negating ability
<g>
What happens when you increase the size of a HEAT warhead is essentially
that you increase the length of the jet that causes the penetration. However,
the longer the jet is the more there is for the RA to disrupt; so if the HEAT
is affected at all by the particular type of RA carried by the target, the
effect of the RA is to reduce the HEAT's normal penetration by a roughly fixed
percentage. The remaining percentage of the HEAT's normal penetration then
goes on to attack the target's main armour. This is exactly the effect you get
from DS2's "RA reduces the chit validity of HEAT
warheads" mechanic - though DS2 is a bit old-fashioned regarding what
types of attack RA can protect against.
> Besides which, if I were redesigning DSIII I'd ditch reactive armor
DS3 needs to be *designed* before you can start *re*designing it...
I would not ditch RA altogether - unfortunately, since its demise would
certainly make my real-world job a lot easier! Given the amount of work
and resources being poured into designing improved types of RA (both explosive
and otherwise) which can defeat tandem warheads and other HEAT improvements,
the rather uncomfortable (for me, anyway) amount of success some of those
efforts have achieved already, and also the effect modern RAs
have on kinetic penetrators - both APFSDS and long-range EFP slugs like
those fired from SADARM or BONUS "MAK-style" artillery rounds - I'd be
quite surprised (though very relieved) to see the reactive armours going
out of business anytime soon. They'll stay in DS3... though they probably
won't have quite the effects veteran DS2 players might expect from them
:-/
> I could see letting PDS shoot it down, though. How about we cost the
Something like that. If you want to use the standard PDS-vs-GMS to-hit
resolution rather than invent some new way for PDS to engage what is
essentially an oversized GMS, you'll need to assign a Quality rating to the
Taifun - either the operator's Quality, in which case the "Heavy MAK"
cost
works, or if you assume the Taifun to have a limited attack-run-only
autonomy a separate fixed Quality in which case it'd be easier to use the
GMS/H costs.
> > The purely tactical ADS systems normally present on the DS2 table
Yes, I saw that one... it was remarkably similar to the list I wrote a
couple of years ago :-)
Regards,
> > Yeah, I know. I already wrote a list of things I think need to be
With all this discussion about weaponry in DS III....
Will we see the new ruleset before it is a decade out of date?
...ducks for cover....
> On 8/1/05, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> With all this discussion about weaponry in DS III....
It was written obsolete. But hopefully we'll see it sometime before the heat
death of the universe. I've just been doing some reading about the future of
warfare and this is on my mind.
The US Army breaks down things into a set of Battlefield Operating Systems.
Maneuver, fire support, air defense, command and control, intelligence,
mobility and survivability, and combat service support cover nearly everything
that can be done in combat. I've rewritten
the mobility piece of the mobility/survivability system. While it
needs some serious work, polishing/editing and bringing it in line
with the core DS mechanics, it still works a core. I've gone over what
rewriting the Air Defense BOS would entail. Maneuver is what most people think
of the core of the rules, and the biggest issue I
have is the speed of the game--nothing moves as fast as you'd expect.
C2, that is the trickiest portion to emulate and I am not sure where to begin.
Intelligence and CSS are largely out of the hands of the local commander at
the company level except as constraints on the scenario, but more and more
capabilities are pushed lower there should be some rules to cover that.
Fire support needs some serious work and I have some ideas along those lines
which I'll probably write in a day or two.
> KHR wrote:
> With all this discussion about weaponry in DS III....
Dunno - that depends on how up-to-date the developers are with
contemporary
technology when it finally goes to print :-)
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > With all this discussion about weaponry in DS III....
Er, John:
DirtSide TWO was written obsolete.
However, KHR asked about DirtSide THREE - which for the most part hasn't
been written yet, so how can it be obsolete already? <g>
Later,
> On 8/1/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> DirtSide TWO was written obsolete.
Yeah. I meant the Dirtside rule system, hang a I, II, or III on it as
you like. Unless DSIII is a heavy-duty rewrite. Which I hope it will
be.
OA said:
> DirtSide TWO was written obsolete.
The real world moves faster than the publication process. :-)
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >DirtSide TWO was written obsolete.
I've never read DS1, so I can't say how similar it was to DS2... all I know is
that its vehicle design system was radically different. But yes, the DS2 core
mechanics don't lend themselves at all well to replicating today's
fast-moving armoured combat.
> Unless DSIII is a heavy-duty rewrite. Which I hope it will be.
If DS3 is merely a heavy-duty rewrite of DS2, I'm going to be very
disappointed with Jon :-/
Later,
> At 5:27 PM +0200 8/1/05, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
the kind of AAA available during the Vietnam war - to model even the
later 1990s very well.
Yeah...well, I wrote them to go along with the flow....
> Considering that even the original HAWK system had a range of 25 km,
Typo....There are a bunch in the web version too. I wrote them hoping to get
comments and I think posted them to the list way back when....Then got busy
with other things then never looked at it....I know laserlight or someone
referred to the page way back when....ack it was back in '99 that I last
updated that page....
> Today's "MADS equivalents" have a *maximum* altitude as well -
Should the altitude limit apply in DSII/III terms?
> No, they don't (not if you're serious about the "120mu range" bit,
They tend to require multiple units, however aren't those more in the range of
being covered by the ZAD systems? Given that the method of fire is a bit
abstracted (ground fire allowed, etc).
> Only one Sensor element may be active for a given set of Launcher
Picky picky. Any destruction of course allows a swap of command if available.
I suppose there's a timing issue. Perhaps if it's part of another unit it
needs an activation to bring its sensors online if not.
> A MADS's search and tracking radars emit radiation just like an ADS.
Thus each elements' signatures are effectively 1 larger and Stealth/ECM
systems are ineffective.
> This is one of the most 1970s bits of the entire DS2 rules set. While
Well, sure, but don't systems like AALARM have some of their own sneaky
things? I'd expect that with faster ARMs and better sensor resolution, that
once you emit and stay in the same place, you're more likely to be toasted?
Though, I can see your point, does High end ECM always trump high end Active
Emissions? What level of emissions aren't going to increase your signature to
the other guys? Does something with total emcon vs something with active
search emissions have the same signature even with all the cat spinning and
ecm additions? How to compensate for that? Have two die rolls? Have the ARM
roll against a primary die of signature and have ECM as a secondary die?
Presumably the ECM can spoof the ARM away, but if that doesn't work you get
shredded (or at least the antenna does).
> Dunno - that depends on how up-to-date the developers are with
Now, you see, where we spaceship warfare guys have it easy. We don't have to
worry about being overtaken by events yet!
Who knows what land warfare will be like in a couple of centuries... I suspect
there'll still be muddy guys with strong backs, packing a bad attitude, smelly
feet and a personal weapon... They've been around since the days of Ur and
Sumer after all...
> At 5:27 PM +0200 8/1/05, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> >This is one of the most 1970s bits of the entire DS2 rules set. While
Part of the problem is that the NATO forces in Kosovo didn't have a
combined/joint strike capability. Army strike assets (MLRS/ATACMS)
would have gone a long way towards dealing with this thing because of
faster response times--there's only so many tricks you can play on a
dumb rocket dropping submunitions all over your aproximate location and
surrounding environs.
But at any rate, switching a radar on and off may keep it from being shredded
by an ARM, but it doesn't do the effectiveness of your air defense network any
favors. If it put the air defenses on local manual controls long enough for
the strike package to pass overhead then that's good enough sometimes.
And it will be, as always, a race between radar designers and ARM designers as
to who can play better tricks.
> No, they don't (not if you're serious about the "120mu range" bit,
The examples that I can think of are either single vehicle based (rapier,
crotale, etc), OR are split up to seperate C&C/launcher control from
things that draw fire (e.g. radar systems, launchers) (e.g. flycatcher Mk2)
Cheers,
> John A. wrote:
> >This is one of the most 1970s bits of the entire DS2 rules set. While
> this was true during >the 'Nam and Yom Kippur wars, it wasn't true for
> Serb AA units during the NATO bombings >of Kosovo, it isn't true
Oh, certainly. 'Course, those army strike assets would also have been in
range of the *Serbian* army strike assets which the combined air forces
were trying to hit from higher than 15,000' altitude ;-)
It would also have added another interesting facet to this AA-vs-ARM ECM
warfare: creating *false* AA radar emissions to make the NATO forces waste
their MLRS/ATACMS on cheap decoys (just like they expended quite a lot
of expensive precision bombs on what turned out to be garbage containers with
a fire lit in one end - on long-distance IR that looks very much like an
MBT).
How many rockets can NATO afford to waste before they start requiring more
secure confirmation that the emitter is a radar rather than a decoy?
'Course, in the Kosovo case there's yet another ugly twist to this: place
the AA radars - either real ones or decoys - close to an Albanian
village, so the NATO forces can't use their area weapons without "committing
an atrocity" against the very people they wanted to *protect*. How many such
disasters could the alliance take without fracturing? It was pretty strained
by the bombing of refugee columns and the Chinese embassy, after
all...
> But at any rate, switching a radar on and off may keep it from being
Thing is, modern radars can play ECM tricks *without* shutting themselves down
and instead use among other things their own radar emissions to fool the
ARMs... and see my reply to Ryan for an even more interesting option
:-)
> And it will be, as always, a race between radar designers and ARM
Of course - but emulating that kind of capabilities race is precisely
what FMA's core opposed die roll does best. It's merely a matter of selecting
your baseline appropriately for the setting you play in :-)
Later,
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> >They look OK-ish as long as you only intend to fight battles set in
Trouble is, with DS2 "written obsolete" as John so diplomatically put it,
going with the flow automatically makes the additions "written obsolete"
too :-(
> >Today's "MADS equivalents" have a *maximum* altitude as well -
I think so, yes. Aircraft should be able to attack from above the
"less-than-theater" AA's range, but at greatly reduced accuracy. Exactly
what altitude would be "safe" from the MADS and lesser systems will vary
with time - today it is around 15,000', tomorrow it will no doubt be
higher; but if the MADS can only reach 120mu *horisontally* it won't be able
to reach much further *vertically*... so there will always be an altitude
above which you need even bigger AA weapons than MADS to hit the
high-flying aircraft.
> >No, they don't (not if you're serious about the "120mu range" bit,
> all systems collected on a single >vehicle. They *can* be split up
When they have weapon ranges of 10-15 kilometers, they are most
definitely *not* covered by DS2's "ZAD" (aka "ADS") system (which only has a
range of
2.4 km). These 10-15 km ranges do however very nicely bracket the very
range you specified for your "MADS" system...
> >>A MADS's search and tracking radars emit radiation just like an ADS.
> Thus each elements' signatures are effectively 1 larger and
> this was true during >the 'Nam and Yom Kippur wars, it wasn't true for
> Serb AA units during the NATO bombings >of Kosovo, it isn't true
> things?
Sure, but in DS terms all that means is that you get an opposed die roll
between the missile's Guidance Quality and the radar's ECM level. It
doesn't say squat about what die size the radar's ECM has to use - it
could
still range from "None" (D4) all the way up to "Superior" (D10) :-)
> I'd expect that with faster ARMs and better sensor resolution, that
Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position, at least
not if your ECM capabilities are better than the enemy's. Modern
radars can also be *very* low-powered and still get astonishingly good
returns; cf. eg. the claimed detection ranges for the F-22's radar
system compared to the ranges where said radar's emissions can be detected by
older aircraft.
In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation of AA
tracking systems will most likely be passive ones which don't need to emit
*anything* towards the enemy aircraft. (No, I'm not kidding: similar passive
tracking systems are already entering service on combat aircraft.) Their
launch units will still need to emit guidance signals to the
missiles, but those signals can be very tight-beam and only need to
intersect with the target aircraft just before the missile hits... leaving
very for ARMs to lock on to even if they aren't spoofed by anything.
Later,
> At 5:59 PM +0200 8/2/05, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
Are BUFF style Strikes Modeled into DSII at all? I'd always assumed the "high"
level was several thousand feet, not 15,000. "hey look at the pretty
contrails..."*BOOOM*
> When they have weapon ranges of 10-15 kilometers, they are most
Ok, what's an All in one ~120mu type all in one system? Rapier? Chaparel?
Aren't those short ranged? SLAMRAAM?
Do you want to have a size slide with superiority so you can put your superior
system in one chassis with the launcher? Sounds like there needs to be a
technical level as well. DSII has generally assumed increased capability was
bigger and more expensive. How are you lads
going to do that in DSIII and keep it elegant and un-Battle-Techish?
> Sure, but in DS terms all that means is that you get an opposed die
It doesn't say squat about what die size the radar's ECM has to use - it
could still range from "None" (D4) all the way up to "Superior" (D10)
:-)
Guidance quality die vs target size die (modified by stealth and emissions)
and target ECM die
> Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position, at
Aren't modern systems effectively proof against some of the older tech barring
an operator that's asleep? ie mostly automated and fast? Its kind of like DF
gear that can DF a signal as soon as the radio transmits a burst. Also, if
your tech level is capable of making heads and tails of a low power emission,
then the equivalent tech level is capable of making heads or tails of your
emissions which will have similar strength. Unless your emitter has a really
huge receiver array in which case you've got a honking big target die.
> In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation of
similar passive tracking systems are already entering service on combat
aircraft.) Their launch units will still need to emit guidance signals
to the missiles, but those signals can be very tight-beam and only need
to intersect with the target aircraft just before the missile hits... leaving
very for ARMs to lock on to even if they aren't spoofed by anything.
Then they're not emitting anything and it's high resolution passive sensors in
other words. Kind of a different animal. Hard to have an ARm if you don't
emit. But, once you get a fixed target point, a floating PGM can then be
tasked with hitting that fixed point that revealed
itself. This level of fencing seems beyond the ARM/Anti-ARM game.
> On 8/2/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Oh, certainly. 'Course, those army strike assets would also have been
Do the Serbs have anything now or then which could play footsie with an
ATACMS? I doubt it. I'd also question whether they have CBR capable of
figuring out where that MLRS strike is coming from before they packed up and
moved. If so, then that better be capable of spoofing ARMs too...
At the very least it would have made the tactical questions more complex.
Relying on a single type of asset simplified the Serbian tactical situation
immensely. And simplifying your opponent's situation is the opposite of what
you should be trying to do.
> It would also have added another interesting facet to this AA-vs-ARM
And here we have the fundamental problem with any single-arm approach
to ANYTHING. Without eyes on the ground, properly trained eyes with the right
gear, strike assets, be they precision or otherwise, can be spoofed. UAVs
would have helped in Serbia, but they wouldn't have solved the problem, not in
that terrain against that foe.
What people forget about Serbians is that while it may be fashionable to sneer
at them because they have a very 12th century view of tolerance and
multiculturalism, they aren't stupid and it was a serious error on the part of
the NATO planning staff to assume so. The only nation in Europe to liberate
themselves from Nazis didn't do it by being dumb.
> Of course - but emulating that kind of capabilities race is precisely
Genau..
> On 8/2/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> *anything* towards the enemy aircraft. (No, I'm not kidding: similar
Doesn't the SU-27 have an IR sensor or something like that?
> At 8:24 PM +0200 8/2/05, John Atkinson wrote:
A passive backup mode would be additional costs for the system which would be
a layer to ignore and abstract or to pay for up front and fall back to and
roll a backup primary die for against the PDS and ECM of the targeted
Aircraft.
> Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position, at
Modern
> radars can also be *very* low-powered and still get astonishingly
Unless
> your emitter has a really huge receiver array in which case you've got
Not necessarily true. When radar energy gets spread in both time and
frequency, this makes it very hard for an opponent to detect these seemingly
random low power emissions. The transmitting side knows exactly what his
transmitted signal looked like, and can integrqate over the time and frequency
spectrum to regain the overall power transmitted, and thus get a much higher
effective power. Err. Does this make sense to anyone? Much easier to explain
with a whiteboard available....
> In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation of
similar
> passive tracking systems are already entering service on combat
This
> level of fencing seems beyond the ARM/Anti-ARM game.
How do you mean enxt generation? Fully passive (IR) detection and tracking
systems are already in use? And frighteningly effective, too.
Cheers,
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> I think so, yes. Aircraft should be able to attack from above the
MADS can
> only reach 120mu *horisontally* it won't be able to reach much
No. Neither are any other high-altitude attacks by smaller craft flying
above the range of tactical AA systems. That's yet another of the reasons why
DS2's aerospace rules are obsolete, and why any attempt to add "more
realistic" AA rules which nevertheless "go with the flow" of the DS2 AA rules
will automatically be obsolete themselves...
> When they have weapon ranges of 10-15 kilometers, they are most
2S6M Tunguska (SA-19 missile range 10km vs low-flying aircraft, but the
Tunguska is also armed with shorter-ranged cannon), SA-8 Gecko (range
15km), RBS23 Bamse (range 15 km, though that one's debatable - the
radars and launchers are all on the same unit, but the crew and controls can
be
detached if desired)... Of course all of these can also benefit from using
data provided by external surveillance radars if it is available, but they
don't *need* it to engage.
> Do you want to have a size slide with superiority so you can put your
Essentially by returning to the DS1 concept of vehicle design, ie. "write down
whatever stats you consider appropriate for the vehicle you want to
model, then use the published DS3 points system to figure out how many
scenario points it costs". We'll probably provide some sort of design
guidelines for the GZGverse powers during the Xeno War period as examples of
how one can create one's own design systems for specific backgrounds,
but none of those guidelines will be compulsory; the *points* system OTOH will
be.
Why this? Because if DS3 is to be a generic game it'll need to be able to
cover as many different SF ground combat backgrounds as possible. Since every
combat SF background has its own restrictions on what technologies
are available and how big and heavy they are, it is impossible to write a
single design system which covers each and every one of them without being
horribly complex - think "Fire Fusion and Steel", then raise that level
of complexity to the power of the number of different combat SF backgrounds
you can list... the "write down the stats you consider appropriate, then
use the published points system to determine the points cost" gives pretty
much the same end result but with a lot less effort :-/
> Sure, but in DS terms all that means is that you get an opposed die
Or simply use the standard DS2 GMS rules: guidance quality die vs ECM
die...
> Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position,
cf. eg.
> the claimed detection ranges for the F-22's radar system compared to
barring
> an operator that's asleep? ie mostly automated and fast?
Automation is a double-edged weapon. It works very well as long as the
enemy uses his old equipment in the same old ways as the automaton is
programmed to recognise, but if the enemy comes up with new ways to use his
old gear the automatons can surprisingly often mis-interpret the signals
they detect... and when that happens, it can take a very alert operator
indeed to realise that something is amiss :-/
> Also, if your tech level is capable of making heads and tails of a low
tails of
> your emissions which will have similar strength.
Like Derk said, this is not necessarily true with today's modern equipment. It
*used* to be true though, back when the stories on which DS2 was based
were written... :-/
> Unless your emitter has a really huge receiver array in which case
You mean "a honking SMALL target die", or "a honking big SIGNATURE". A BIG
target die in DS means that you have a SMALL signature, and that you're
therefore *difficult* to detect.
However, once again your assumption - "a big reciever array gives a big
signature" - is not necessarily true with today's technology. It *used*
to
be true back when DS2's source material was written though :-/
> In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation
Derk asked why I called this "next generation": because we're talking
primarily about land-based AA systems here (as opposed to systems
mounted
on aircraft or wet-navy ships), and AFAIK there aren't any land-based AA
systems using purely passive surveillance and tracking systems in service yet.
If there is one in service, I'd be very interested in hearing about
it :-)
> Then they're not emitting anything and it's high resolution passive
A different animal in real-world technical terms... but they do the same
job as the AA target tracking and acquisition radars, only stealthier.
DirtSide's game mechanics don't care about the exact physical principles an AA
unit's surveillance and tracking equipment uses to detect and track targets;
all that matters in the game is 1) how good the AA unit is at detecting and
engaging enemy aircraft and 2) how likely it is that the AA unit will itself
be detected by the enemy while it is shooting at said aircraft. Passive
surveillance and tracking systems make it possible to
build ADS/MADS/etc. systems which can search for enemy aircraft
*without* making themselves shining beacons the way DS2's ADS rules claim they
should.
> Hard to have an ARm if you don't emit. But, once you get a fixed
Not at all. Technically speaking the PGM won't be an "ARM" since it doesn't
home on to the Radiation emitted by the target, but in game terms the
difference is minimal: ARMs are tasked with hitting a target that revealed
itself, and your "floating PGM" is *also* tasked with hitting a target that
revealed itself. The only differences between them are the exact
PSB-technical details of how that target revealed and the probability
that it will be revealed at all; the game mechanics aren't anywhere near
detailed enough to bother with the PSB-technical details, so for the
game rules all that matters is what die size the AA unit uses in the opposed
die roll determining whether or not it has been revealed. Whether you call
that
die "ECM", "Signature" or something else is pretty irrelevant :-/
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Oh, certainly. 'Course, those army strike assets would also have been
Not ATACMS (165 km range), but MLRS only reaches 32km (at least according to
the unclassified FM <g>) which is very nearly within range of the
longest-ranged WP and South African howitzers. I don't know if Serbia
had any such howitzers at the time of the Kosovo crisis, but it wouldn't
surprise me at all - the various ex-Yugo states bought massive amounts
of
weapons from abroad during the post-break-up wars.
The Serbs also had their own MLR systems firing DPICM rockets; and although
the ones I have any range data for (the M77) is rather shorter-ranged
than the MLRS (only ~20km) it looks pretty much like any other truck until it
fires, so it might be able to sneak into range as well - not even the US
could afford to shoot at every single enemy truck before it got within 20km
of the FEBA :-/
> I'd also question whether they have CBR capable of figuring out
I'd expect the Serbs to have a pretty good idea about where the MLRSs even
*before* they fired, and that *without* using any CBRs... it's not as if
the NATO would've been the only ones with observers on the ground, after
all ;-)
> At the very least it would have made the tactical questions more
Indeed. It would also have made the *political* questions far more complex
for the *alliance*, which was why it didn't happen - you only want to
increase the complexity of the *enemy's* questions, not of your own :-/
> It would also have added another interesting facet to this AA-vs-ARM
Yep. For that matter even eyes on the ground can be spoofed if they don't
have enough time to check the target out up close - some of those
Serbian decoys look very realistic until you get within a hundred meters or so
of them.
> UAVs would have helped in Serbia, but they wouldn't have
UAVs *were* used in Serbia. USAF Predators, US Army Hunters, USMC Pioneers,
German and French CL-289s, French Crecerelles, British Phoenixes... and
just as you expected they didn't solve the problem. (Some pilots even claimed
that they *reduced* the number of Serbian tanks killed, since it
took so long to get an UAV to confirm a particular target that the strike
craft often had to return to refuel before it could get permission to
fire...)
As far as I can tell some 20-25 UAVs were shot down during the Kosovo
crisis (the Serbs claimed 25 UAVs shot down; NATO's UAV units reported 21 lost
to enemy fire and 6 lost to "other causes", but I don't know how complete
those reports were) including at least one and possibly more shot
down by door gunners aboard Serbian MI-8 helicopters. The use of
helicopters for UAV-hunting was stopped when NATO started providing
fighter cover for their UAVs, though <g>
Later,
> Derk asked why I called this "next generation": because we're talking
Mirador. Um, wait. It uses a LRF (Laser Range Finder). But passive
IR/visible light detection and tracking. Only active when engaging.
There's a naval and a ground based version, ground-based in use with
Venezuelan air force, for one. Naval used in quite some navies.
Cheers,
> Derk wrote:
> >Derk asked why I called this "next generation": because we're talking
Thanks! I knew about the naval version used on the Tromp, but not that
there was a land-based version as well.
On 8/3/05, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Not ATACMS (165 km range), but MLRS only reaches 32km (at least
Oerjan, can you recommend any (non-classified) resources for use lay
people to read about current military technology -- and, if possible,
the advances in tactics for using them? Online resources would be wonderful,
but books or periodicals would work, too.
There are quite a few people on here (myself included) who are interested in
military technology, but without a good source we tend to have outdated ideas.
I used to read Military Technology magazine, a British or Euro magazine if I
remember correctly, about 15 years ago, but it seems to have gone under.
Having a handle on modern military capabilities, even if I can't find out the
specifics, would certainly help in rules writing and game design.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> Oerjan, can you recommend any (non-classified) resources for use lay
I can't recommend any "one-stop shop" resource that'll give it all to
you quickly. Books discussing military hardware and tactics are usually too
far
behind - by the time there's enough unclass info on real hardware and
tactics that an author can write a coherent book about it, the info is usually
obsolecent already... There are some interesting books which attempt to
project trends into the future, but they tend to become inaccurate rather
quickly when the trends don't develop in the direction
predicted. (Reading such books 5-10 years after they were published can
be quite amusing <g>)
Magazines are more up-to-date, but you have to piece the whole picture
together from lots of little pieces. The various Jane's publications are
full of gossip on the latest hardware developments and general trends; but
they are very light on tactics, and unless your local library has them they
can be difficult to get hold of unless you have a lot of money to spare.
Military magazines like Armor Magazine
(<http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/index.htm>) and Military
Review (<http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/English/index.htm>) have
quite a lot of tactics discussions, though for some reason their free
on-line archives tend to lag behind the printed versions <g>
If you have plenty of time and a good net connection, you can find lots of
unclassified military Field Manuals on-line. The US Army ones can be
found
eg. at <https://134.11.61.26/CD6/Publications/DA/FM/ByPub.htm> (as well
as in several other places). Unfortunately the manuals don't give any hard
data on the capabilities of the latest equipment, and it can also be hard
to figure out in which of the FMs you'll find what you're looking for -
particularly if you don't already know what it is that you *are* looking for
<g>
Then there's the rest of the 'net... where you can find all the latest
rumours, and also a lot of hard facts - the only problem is to figure
out
which is which! Here the best bet is to join a good military-topic
discussion forum, and figure out which members know what they're talking
about and which you should ignore.
My favourite forum for land warfare is TankNet (<www.tank-net.org>),
where
many of the members are ex- or serving soldiers from all around the
world (including a bunch who currently are or recently have been in Iraq; some
of them kept up running commentaries during their deployment there)... a bit
like this mailing list, but with a larger proportion of soldiers. As always
you won't get the whole picture in a single sitting, but at least you don't
have to wade through too much false data or massive Field Manual tomes
<g>
Later,