Currently trying to sort out an army for Dirtside (a game with which I have
pretty much zero experience).
The first thing is to get the sizes of vehicles right - the size
classes of 1 - 5 are rather course, but the difference in size between
models seems to be somewhat less obvious.
I've taken some photons of a sample of my models (mostly GZG I think), and
arranged according to my estimated size class. If people with DS experience
could have a look and say whether it looks vaguely sensible I'd be grateful.
The grid they're on is a 25mm grid, with size class 1 in the top row, and size
class 5 in the bottom row (at least in the first picture).
http://www.glendale.org.uk/~sam/dirtside/images.html
I'm not sure about the VTOL (2nd row, far right) - should it be size 2
or size 3?
There also isn't a lot of difference in the sizes of the hover tanks
(2nd column from left, dark green) - GZG describes the size 3 as being
a light tank, and the size 4 as being a heavy tank, though there isn't much
difference and the 'heavy' is a lot smaller than the other tanks I've
designated as size 4.
Cheers.
> On 7/17/05, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> I'm not sure about the VTOL (2nd row, far right) - should it be size 2
Either way.
> There also isn't a lot of difference in the sizes of the hover tanks
That's another one that could go either way.
The only thing that I've ever heard that seemed to be somewhat "official",
was that an M-1 Abrams is size 3. Given that, in order of appearance
looking at dcp_0243.jpg, I would suggest...
1 1
2 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 4 3 4
5 5 5 5
Now, that said, there is a HUGE amount of "personal preference and fudge
factor" involved. If you need to carry more or less equipment, or larger or
smaller weapons, going up or down 1 class size should be completely
acceptable. I have some of the tanks that you have in the 4th row down painted
tan and brown, and I've made mine class 4. The vehicle in
gray/brown in front of it, and the green artillery piece ahead of that
(going to the right), I also use as class 4. But I can easily see that any of
them (especially the artillery) could be class 3. Well, maybe that's
pushing it with the heavy tank.:)
In the end, it's up to your personal taste, and as long as you tell your
opponents what class it is, it should be fine.
John
--On Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:40 PM +0100 Samuel Penn
<sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> Currently trying to sort out an army for Dirtside (a game with which
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 22:01, John K. Lerchey wrote:
I should have numbered them or something, but I didn't think of that until
afterwards... but since the original post I've decided to make the two VTOL
craft in 2nd row both size 3 (as you've suggested).
The light and heavy hover tanks (2nd column) I'll probably make both
size 3, and use the amount of armour as the light/heavy difference.
Dirtside design is definitely very different from FT design...
Thanks for the suggestions guys.
My designs will probably be going up soon, so then everyone can have a good
laugh...
I'd love to see 'em when you get them done.
John
--On Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:51 PM +0100 Samuel Penn
<sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 22:01, John K. Lerchey wrote:
> John Lerchey wrote:
> The only thing that I've ever heard that seemed to be somewhat
Even that isn't particularly official... the source for that comes from the
DS2 list of vehicle sizes on p.8:
"Class 3 (Medium): Most main battle tanks, heavier APCs and MICVs, Medium
Artillery etc."
Doesn't mention the Abrams at all - and the Abrams, along with the Leo2
and Chally2, are the upper end of today's MBT range. Most *other* MBTs
(ex-USSR, Chinese, French, Italian) are smaller, as are most "heavier
APCs and MICVs, Medium Artillery etc."...
Later,
On Mon, July 18, 2005 8:16, Oerjan Ariander said:
> John Lerchey wrote:
I ignored that reference, because, to be honest, I don't know what an Abrams
is (though I vaguely recognise the name in association with tanks, possibly
American).
> Doesn't mention the Abrams at all - and the Abrams, along with the
What is a Main Battle Tank? Are they big tanks or average tanks?
> From the size 3 classification, I'd assume average tanks with
(my interest in history ends soon after 14th century, and picks up again
sometime in the future, much to the consternation of
my gun-loving RAF/Army friends when they tried introducing me
to Twilight 2000, and insisted on describing things as an MK47b2 when I just
wanted to know whether it was a "big gun", "little gun" or a "don't point that
at my planet").
> On 7/18/05, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> What is a Main Battle Tank? Are they big tanks or average tanks?
Once upon a time, there were tanks. Back in WWII, there were two
types of tanks. Big hulking landship-style tanks, and small
relatively zippy tanks like the FT-17. These became known as "Light"
and "Heavy" tanks.
By WWII, tanks had split into more categories. You had light tanks which were
basically recon vehicles. You have "infantry support" tanks which were
typically 'medium' in weight, but some were heavier. There were heavy tanks
like the Char 1b. You also had what the
British called "Cruiser" tanks which were armed with anti-armor work
in mind and were typically also medium-weight.
Over the war years, these fine theoretical distinctions were determined to be
so much bullshit on the battlefield. Guns became larger caliber and higher
velocity as 2pdr, 3cm, and 37mm guns became incapable of penetrating the armor
of improved tanks. When they got to the point of firing effective high
explosive shells, the distinction between "infantry support" and "cruiser"
tanks disappearer. The weights also shot up. The Pzkpfw III, which was a
respectable medium-weight anti-armor armed tank in 1940 was by
mid-1944 a reconaissance vehicle and so considered a 'light tank'.
The tank guns got bigger, and heavier velocity. The Russians were
using 85mm, the US 90mm (in limited numbers-the mainstay was the
76mm), and the Germans 88mm. At that point, it became possible for a vehicle
with the mobility associated with a "medium tank" to carry a gun capable of
punching a "heavy tank" at battlefield ranges.
This became known as the "Main Battle Tank". Panthers, T-34/85s, and
M-26s arguably all fit into this category. You could make a case that
M-4A3E8s were used in this role and performed nearly as well as or
better than T-34s every time they were match against each other. It
is significant to note that excepting the Panther and M-26, these were
all upgrades of classic "Medium Tanks".
So, a Main Battle Tank is the modern all-singing, all-dancing tank
which hunts other tanks, supports infantry, is fast cross-country, and
carries enough armor to defeat any weapon not designed specifically to destroy
MBTs.
These are all gross generalizations, and as such could easily be picked apart
line by line with specific refutations, but it's enough to understand the
intent of the term.
On Mon, July 18, 2005 11:06, John Atkinson said:
> On 7/18/05, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
[...good stuff snipped...]
> So, a Main Battle Tank is the modern all-singing, all-dancing tank
Almost sounds a lot like the history of the computer industry, with PCs now
doing most things well enough, filling roles which used to be filled by
mainframes, supers and minis.
So, the MBT does most things well enough.
> These are all gross generalizations, and as such could easily be
Thanks a lot for that, it was interesting.
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Samuel Penn
> Currently trying to sort out an army for Dirtside (a game with which
Not necessarily. There are no published "stats" for GZG or rival figure ranges
beyond the few examples & guidelines published in the DS2 rulebook itself. If
you check the rules you will see that they intentionally cultivate free
interpretation (and if I could find my copy I'd cite page & paragraph). There
IS no "right".
In real life the armour, calibre & power/weight ratio of your and
your opponent's vehicles dance around each other in a sort of
ghastly thee-way tango. It's not what you've got that counts, it's
what you've got relative to your enemy that matters. Others on this list can
tell you this better than I.
So for DS2, throw some stats down on paper and try them against your opponent.
It doesn't really matter if you are both one or even
two size grades above or below conventionally-accepted norms for
your miniatures - as long as it works for you, go with it.
I guarantee that whatever you chose for your vehicles, you will want
to re-design them at least once if not several times over.
Nathan