Hola Amigos!
Has anyone got a copy of them ol' Microgames Helltank and Helltank Destroyer
handy for reference (I have a copy of HT but it is packed away
in the unfathomable depths of the garage-morass). I was thinking that
the units and background might make for mmm-mmm good D2 gaming.
Oversized and multi-turreted tanks are always fun. IIRC there were
Japanese, Israeli, Brazilian tanks, Maybe Ruski too?? And now that I've
blown open my retro-game-vault-synapses what about Rivets and BOPPers.
Later,
Gene
I have both games, but haven't looked at them lately. One of the
interesting concepts in HD was an Ogre-sized vehicle that carried other
tank units inside. Do you REALLY want that in DS II? ;->=
The_Beast
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> I have both games, but haven't looked at them lately. One of the
Maybe. It would be sort of interesting, although the PSB-rating would be
fairly high...and although such a vehicle would be dangerous, it would also be
a VERY BIG target, and very slow. Just get artillery onto it, lots of arty,
and that's all, folks...
Sort of the ultimate APC...
Scenario idea: One or two of these uber-tanks vs. a force of infantry
and
on- and off-table artillery. I think the result would be a couple of
dead
uber-tanks...
The DS2 vehicle construction rules are, realistically, not kind to
enormous freak-vehicles, nor to mecha. By all means field them, if they
interest you, but I think an equal-point value combined arms force would
take them out...swarm tactics, if nothing else.
And this re-enforces why combined arms forces will pretty generally come
out on top of single armed forces. Tanks, Arty and Infantry have weaknesses
and strengths theat complement each other.
> ----------
You gotta love the enormous freak-tank for its own sake though. Even if
it stinks in real-life. Anyhow most Freak-Tank/'Mecha games always have
postulated some kind of hothouse type of environment where the Giant
Robot/Ogre/Heavy Launch Tank/Bolo thrives due to Biphase Carbide
Armor/Lack of Artillery or its ineffectual nature/PSB/It Looks Cool.
Hell, maybe the environment is like (shudder) Epic scale Squats, where the
environment on the planets they live is so harsh they live in giant
armored Winnebagos/Mining Machines/Tanks/Land Trains/Crawlers/Hoo Hahs.
Or combat is so ritualized it takes place only with Battlemechs a'la the
Tournaments of High-Medieval Europe, using outmoded, heavy armors that
would be rattling deathtraps on the 'real' battlefield (winched into the
saddle, indeed). Maybe 'Mecha/Freak-Tanks are 'fashionable' weapons or
prestige weapons (every Banana Republic want's a cybertank...). So there
are tons of SF niches that are apropos for the freak-tank. All
rationalizations aside, IIRC Helltank had a more reasonable side to the
background, too......
Gene
> ----------
> > The DS2 vehicle construction rules are, realistically, not kind to
Just out of curiousity, though, has anyone tried fielding larger UNITS
of super-tanks vs. equal point value forces (ala Laumer's Dinachrome
Brigade)?
A number of years ago I tried this (though I don't remember what system I was
using) and discovered that the survivability and deadliness of the
cybertanks began to grow non-arithmetically when they were fielded en
masse.
Or you could postulate something like the rationalization (admittedly, a
little weak) that is usually used for Star Wars AT-ATs and the like.
The aggressor/invader force may be sufficiently more advanced than the
defenders (in production/GNP terms) that for them the extra cost is
negligible compared to the psychological impact of a super-tank.
You've got to admit, they're pretty scarey-looking.
> George,Eugene M wrote:
Epic scale Squats, where the environment on the planets they live is so harsh
they live in giant
armored Winnebagos/Mining Machines/Tanks/Land Trains/Crawlers/Hoo Hahs.
> Or combat is so ritualized it takes place only with Battlemechs
1
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
We've played games with one super-tank vs. a conventional force of equal
points value, and it's truly a "death of a thousand cuts" for the
super-tank. We figured that the number of guns on the conventional side
virtually guarantee that the super-tank will die.
> "I've seen collisions on fire off the side of the ethernet LAN.
A bastardy of a quote from Bladerunner? Just wanted to check my movie
knowledge.
BTW - the problem with any large military vehicle (aircraft carrier,
battleship, large tank) is that it can't mount enough defenses to stop an
equal value in attacks from smaller armed opponents. It has a strategic
purpose that the smaller vehicles can't fullfill (range, fuel, carrying
capacity, etc.) so it has its place, but it certainly isn't the equal of the
'swarm' in individual combat.
:) T.
/************************************************
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
I believe that a Super-tank unit would be excellent for a breakthrough
role, ie, incredible firepower concentrated on a small portion of a front. You
simply couldn't put enough units into the line to stop it without presenting a
huge artillery target so you would have to defend in depth.
In a breakthrough role, sure you could concentrate all your guns on the
supertank, but that reveals their position to artillery and lets the supertank
blow a hole through your line for less armored tanks.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
************/
During several periods of history, that has not been true. No gun a WWI
destoryer mounted could hurt a battleship seriously, and even the light guns
mounted by a battleship could damage the destroyer (while the largest could
sink or cripple one with a single shot). Torpedoes were a threat, but that's
why battleships didn't travel alone. The screening ships meant the destoryers
couldn't put their torpedoes on target, and the battleship meant that light
units couldn't defeat the screen.
That's why I was asking about GROUPS of super-heavy units, or even mixed
forces. One of the ugliest things I ever saw in a game of G.E.V. was a
force that consisted of a PanEuropean Fencer (medium OGRE and long-range
missile platform extraordinaire, and a large escort of GEVS. The GEVs ranged
out on all sides flushing hidden enemy units and forcing artillery positions
to unmask or be destroyed, and then the Fencer would swat them.
Things were even worse in a game I watched where two Fencers were actually
operating in tandem with a mixture of Mark V Mark III OGRES, with a light GEV
screen. The OGRES were able to support each other with their heavy guns and
keep one another from being mobbed, while the
Fencers in the center provided untouchable long-range support (similar
to a carrier group in current practice).
Admittedly, it was an immensely powerful force and represented a huge
committment of resources for a breakthrough on the enemy center. On the other
hand, the defending force was ENORMOUS, but proved completely unable to stop
the attack. Admittedly, some of the escort OGRES got pretty chewed (several
were immobilized completely), but none were actually destroyed, while the
defenders got mashed. And if you're in a campaign where repairing units is
much easier than replacing them (especially replacing entire formations) that
could be an important factor.
On the other hand, OGRE/G.E.V. was set up to allow super-tanks to
operate effectively. I was curious to know whether anyone's tried this with
more realistic rule systems.
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
[Interesting bits snipped]
> On the other hand, OGRE/G.E.V. was set up to allow super-tanks to
It relies primarily on the super-armour the Ogres have. A carrier is
considered very vulnerable unless it has a _lot_ of screening units. I
suspect that the "realistic OGRE" would always be heavily escorted, especially
by antimissile and (ideally) antiartillery vehicles...
As the size goes up, the proportion of mass you have to dedicate to
armour to provide all-over defence does go down... but with current
weapons, you can't afford (in weight terms) to provide all-over defence
anyway!
Cheers,
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> During several periods of history, that has not been true. No gun a
While true of navies that had ample destroyers to throw around, and generally
a sound tactic if you had the resources for it, one must remember that German
ships of WWII went out almost always without a
destroyer escort of any kind -- yet I can not recall one getting hurt by
a torpedo attack from a lighter vessel EVER (finishing Bismarck off doesn't
count).
The Japanese managed to score a few cruisers but nothing bigger, and they were
the best when it came to surface launched torps.
I think the offensive value of destroyer torps is somewhat overrated.
IMHO, it's more like a bee-sting than a wasp-sting -- defensive in
nature (a bee dies delivering the sting, a wasp doesn't).
> In a message dated 98-01-24 14:39:11 EST, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
<< While true of navies that had ample destroyers to throw around, and
generally a sound tactic if you had the resources for it, one must remember
that German ships of WWII went out almost always without a
destroyer escort of any kind -- yet I can not recall one getting hurt
by a torpedo attack from a lighter vessel EVER (finishing Bismarck off doesn't
count).
The Japanese managed to score a few cruisers but nothing bigger, and they were
the best when it came to surface launched torps.
I think the offensive value of destroyer torps is somewhat overrated.
IMHO, it's more like a bee-sting than a wasp-sting -- defensive in
nature (a bee dies delivering the sting, a wasp doesn't). >>
Well... can you think of a time when _any_ German capital ship other
than the Bismarck even put to sea? I could be wrong, and as I'm in the States
at the moment I don't have my reference books to hand (they're all back in the
UK),
but I think germany only ever built the Bismarck andTirpitz. In the case of
the Bismarck, leaving port without a serious destroyer escort was a pretty
suicidal move, though not so much because of the torpedo threat as aircraft.
Air power was the major threat to capital ships in WWII, hence the reason the
US navy operated in Task Forces: the destroyer 'screen' was primarily an
anti-
aircraft defence.
Jonathan was actually referring originally to WWI, where airpower was not a
factor, but destroyer squadrons were effectively employed, if only to cover
the retreat of the battleships.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have come a long way from Helltank!
Later,
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:27:02 -0500
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Apples and oranges here. I don't think the two are related.
> That's why I was asking about GROUPS of super-heavy units, or even
Ogre in NOT a tactical game. It is a grand tactical abstraction.
> Admittedly, it was an immensely powerful force and represented a huge
Both Ogre and Battletech tactics suffer when used in DSII or SGII -
its because the units are completely unrealistic to begin with.
KR
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Thanks, those statistics actually help a lot. My point was that the
vulnerability of large units vs. small units is entirely dependent on the
technology of the period. For a while there, battlewagons really WERE pretty
much invulnerable to anything except their peers.