From: Robertson, Brendan <Brendan.Robertson@d...>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:15:36 +1000
Subject: RE: [GZG]Somanyquestions [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Welcome to the breach! Don't mind the sheep or the Narn Bat Squad... Trying to
answer in order:
1. MT Missiles as written are "obsolete" compared to salvo missiles (easier to
intercept by PDS, low damage). There are beta rules for updated missiles
floating around that rebalances them to FTFB status.
2. Fighter Bays and Hanger Bays are very similar. The only "in game"
distinction I can see is the ability to re-arm and relaunch fighters
during a game. They both require 1.5 mass per 1 mass of ship and cost
the same. PSB-wise, you could operate fighters from regular hanger bays
(lots of room), but couldn't operate interface landers from a fighter
bay (specialty design for combat launch/recovery of fighters).
In theory, you could operate a fleet carrier with only 1 hanger
bay (holding 6-8 squadrons + interface shuttles and other spacecraft),
but a single threshold check would eviscerate the ship. Hanger Bays are
generally used to carry "parasite" warships between star systems (such as mass
3 banzai jammers or mass 4 fast scout ships).
3. Very rusty on DSII rules, so I'll leave that one.
4. Interfacing between FT, SG & DS depends on what you want to do, and what
the end result is. The "common" method of interfacing is: A. Play the FT
planetary assault to suppress space defences and ground
based missile/fighter launch sites.
B. Abstract the initial landing of forces onto the planet (don't forget your
freighters to bring those forces in! 1 FT Mass = 20 CS of DSII cargo. C. Use
DSII to fight out pitched battles involving entire companies and armoured
assaults (with fighter and Ortillery support).
D. Use SGII to fight "special forces" scenarios from 1-3 companies with
a small number of supporting vehicles. If you want to include points costing,
the currently accepted conversion rates (based on long math and PSB
discussions) is that 1 NPV = 60 DS points. As SG doesn't have a point system,
you pay for those as the abstract DS forces and arm them appropriately
according to your doctrine.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
________________________________
From: On Behalf Of James Austin
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [GZG] So many questions [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
I havn't seen any reference to missiles (ie single shot missiles as decribed
in More Thrust) in any of the canon ship designs in either of the fleet books.
Only salvo missiles. In the desription of Salvo missiles in FB1, it doesn't
seem to be saying that the intention was to replace the old style missiles,
and yet they seem to have done so. Am I missing something?
In Fullthrust, are hangar bays and fighter bays effectively the same thing, or
or they distinct? ie if a ship were to carry interface craft and fighters
would it need seperate bays? Perhaps each fighter wing needs it own bay? Or
maybe a ship just needs a certain amount of mass dedicated to space for bays
and its all just one big hangar? I'm sorry but I cant quite wrap my head
around bays in general. Anyone care to clear things up for me?
One thing that I found unclear for Dirtside II was the rules for infantry
firing upon vehicles. Do they still need to test for effective fire as
described in the rules for infantry firefights? (It is a different situation
when you're firing a missile at a tank 3.6km away than when you're enaging
infantry at say 500m.) I'm guessing that IAVR shots are affected by checks for
effective fire. On that topic, do manpad LAD and mortars need to make
effectiveness checks as well?
I've only read the rules for Dirtside and Full Thrust (ie the downloadable
rules books) but can anyone suggest to me whether Stargrunt or Dirtside would
be better as ground combat rules to interface with Full Thrust? This is the
type of situation that most interests me right now: Multi battle scenarios
involving invasions of planets, including the naval (space) battle to breach
system defences followed by planetary invasions.
James