[GZG] My tank is this big

Cheers for the previous comments on vehicle sizes. I've now started working on
some designs, and in the spirit of 'release early, release often', some of
them are now up on my website.

http://www.glendale.org.uk/dirtside/

The rebel hover tanks are closer to being finished than the NSL forces which
still need a lot of work.

The point values are probably wrong as well (especially the NSL).

> On 7/24/05, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

> The rebel hover tanks are closer to being finished than the NSL

Rebel: Does the Adder have a fixed forward RFAC? If so, why?

Python: Also fixed forward RFAC?

Check p11 for the limits on fixed forward weapon systems. They have a 30
degree fire arc, and may only fire before movement. This means you better have
them pointed precisely where they need to be pointed on the activation prior.
This gives your enemy an entire turn to move out of the way or kill them
before they can fire.

Further comments are purely my opinion, as always METT-T determines.

You seriously need ECM on the tanks. GMSs are the most lethal thing on the
battlefield against armor and as posted those are raw meat
against a force armed even with GMS/L/Basics.  It's cheaper than the
PDS system you've already hung on the DFFG-armed track.

Pz XII -- save 110 points.  Drop the two superior GMS/Hs, and upgrade
the MDC to superior fire control. That makes it superior to the GMS at all
range bands, with the added benefit that it can't be spoofed by ECM or shot
down by PDS. Only stealth helps, and stealth is expensive. Use the extra space
for APFCs or a PDS. I'm also pretty sure the points cost is low but I havn't
doublechecked.

For the APC: It looks like you are mixing powered and line infantry in the
same platoon. You loose the advantage of the higher speed of the power armor.
You also make it more vulnerable because it will take confidence checks as the
more vulnerable line teams take casualties.

You light tanks needs ECM, as mentioned above.

> On Sunday 24 July 2005 15:33, John Atkinson wrote:

It's size 2, 2x infantry = 8 capacity, leaving only 2 for the
weapon system. RFAC/1 takes up 3 if turreted, so it won't fit.

> Python: Also fixed forward RFAC?

Ditto, no room for a turreted weapon plus it's a VTOL and it's not allowed to
use a turret for anything bigger than class 1.

> Check p11 for the limits on fixed forward weapon systems. They have a

Yep, but see above. Actually, I forgot that it was quite that bad, which
almost suggests getting rid of the weapons entirely, or at
least downgrading the RFAC on the Python to RFAC/1 and sticking
it in a turret.

> Further comments are purely my opinion, as always METT-T determines.

I haven't really played Dirtside, so it's practical things like
this I'm not aware of yet :-) ECM also has the advantage of not
taking up capacity.

> Pz XII -- save 110 points. Drop the two superior GMS/Hs, and upgrade

Several of the NSL got upgraded from size 4 to size 5 this morning,
and I haven't had a chance to re-cost the points - that was probably
one of them.

Are there any advantages to the GMS?

Something that always confused me about the GMS is that it's listed as a
direct fire weapon, and everything in the rules implies it can only hit a
target in direct line of sight. However, the name to me
- *Guided* Missile System - suggests it should be able to at least fire
over obstacles.

Which is right? Given my reading of the rules, it's pretty much just another
type of gun (which can be shot down).

> For the APC: It looks like you are mixing powered and line infantry

Can't a unit of APCs drop off line and powered infantry and have each go off
their own way? That's sort of what I was assuming. Given a unit of three APCs,
that would give a unit of 3 line infantry, and a unit of three powered
infantry.

> You light tanks needs ECM, as mentioned above.

I'll look into making more use of ECM, especially since my idea for
the Rebels is for large numbers of GMS/L equipped infantry (I'm putting
together two armies so we can actually start playing the game and finding out
how it really works, so it'll be NSL v Rebels).

Thanks for the comments.

> On 7/24/05, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

> Yep, but see above. Actually, I forgot that it was quite that bad,

Downgrade the Python to a 1 (T), and for the Adder, replace with an extra
APSW. Size 2 APCs are just battle taxis anyway, not intended
for real fire support.  M-113s, not Bradleys.  If you want it to pack
a serious punch at some points cost, then mount a GMS/L.

> Several of the NSL got upgraded from size 4 to size 5 this morning,

Yes. They can be fired at long range, on the move, and do massive damage in
relation to their capacity. Which makes them ideal for light vehicles. For
heavy tanks already equipped with size 4 or 5 guns, they aren't that great.
And they are expensive secondary weapons, especially if high quality.

> Which is right? Given my reading of the rules, it's pretty much just

You are right--it doesn't fire over obstacles, although there are some
house rules which permit such things. Like most modern guided missiles, the
operator has to see the target on launch to lock the sensors onto that
particular signature.

> Can't a unit of APCs drop off line and powered infantry and have each

That would work, although those are awfully small platoons of infantry.

> the Rebels is for large numbers of GMS/L equipped infantry (I'm

In that case there are a couple other things the NSL will need.

ADS systems to provide area defense vs. GMSs, and size two vehicles armed with
light artillery to both supress the infantry and to drop smoke, cutting off
their line of fire.

> At 4:33 PM +0200 7/24/05, John Atkinson wrote:

Ack! Is this the case for VTOLs too? I don't think it's come up in my past
games....but I can't be certain....Seems like I've made popup attacks mostly,
but I have to wonder if there've been some strafing runs here too where the
helo moved then fired...

What do you think guys? Does this look like a size 2 vehicle?
http://www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/britkit/vehicles/images/00da61.jpg

I'd say it could go at size 1 or 2, depending mostly on what you want to

put in it. It's bigger than a Jeep, but clearly not as big as an M1. There is
so much wiggle room between classes that I don't find much of anything to be
"absolute".

John

John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Ryan Gill wrote:

> What do you think guys? Does this look like a size 2 vehicle?

Ryan, Definately size 1. Where can I get one?

Bye for now, John L.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> What do you think guys? Does this look like a size 2
http://www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/britkit/vehicles/images/00da61.jpg
> --
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Data Center Operations Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN

> On Monday 25 July 2005 16:24, Ryan Gill wrote:

It does seem like a very big restriction. I can see why there's the 'fire then
move' (otherwise you just end movement facing the target), but I'd have
thought the fire arc would be wider.

Especially for aircraft, which often don't have turrets but which can line up
on targets reasonably easily (well, it's not much of an issue in computer
games at least...)