As usual, thanks O.O.
Now for the Heresy.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:48:43 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
No, That means (TA DA!) the rules are flawed! Well, that's the argument on the
list currently by Brian B. isn't it? What's sauce or the Greywanderer is sauce
for the warbeads... And inherently s... illogical. Not to mention limiting
beyond anything that Brian has mentioned.
So, House Rule Time!
Glenn Wilson's First Written House Rule for DS 2:
For maximum number of weapons (from page 16 'Capacity Requirements for Vehicle
Weapons and Systems' in the lower right part of the page) per
class the following is applicable at all times -
Direct Fire Weapons - count
GMS systems - count
PDS systems - count
ADS systems - count
LAD systems - count
APSW (past one) - count
Fire Teams - DON'T Count
Cargo Load - DON'T Count
Vehicle Transport - DON'T Count
Command/Communication systems - count
Artillery weapons - count
CBR systems - count
> >It also makes vehicles more effective in close assault actions (as
Thought so.
> Regards,
Gracias,
Before I comment, what standard do you use to decide what items count or not?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
I'm not really following this thread and don't have DS2 handy either, but:
> Glenn Wilson's First Written House Rule for DS 2:
So I could have a Size 3 vehicle with, say, six infantry fire teams with
IAVRs? Could I have more infantry-heavy-weapons-teams firing than I
would if the weapons were just mounted on the vehicle?
The infantry fire teams don't count *as weapons*. You still have to pay for
capacity. Each infantry element eats 4 capacity. The most you can fit into a
size 3 vehicle (15 cap) would be 3 (12 cap, 3 left over).
I didn't hear anyone say that they were throwing out the capacity system...
just the maximum weapons = size of vehicle rule.
Also, where is it stated that you can fire IARVs from the vehicle? It seems to
be implied in some of the discussion. I know you can dismount and open up with
'em, but they are NOT vehicle weapons if they shoot from the vehicle...
J
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> I'm not really following this thread and don't have DS2 handy either,
Actually, to be fair to glen, I believe he meant
infantry not counting towards number of systems -
theyd still take up capacity. So no, a class 3 apc could not carry 24 capacity
of fire teams.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> per class the following is applicable at all times -
We use the following: The "# of weapons per vehicle" limit counts only
-weapons of Size class 1 or more
-GMS
-PDS
-ADS
-LAD
-Artillery
All other systems, including electronic systems, APSWs, and infantry teams do
not count towards the limit.
And no change to the capacity cost of any systems.
Aditionally, I think we see a finer granularity to the Vehicle Size Classes in
our games, as I would place most modern MBTs as Size 4 or 5,
and vehicles like the Bradley and Sherman as Size 3. Sci-Fi
superheavies like the 40K Baneblade or the B5 GROPOS Windsword I'd call Size
6. <shrug>
J
Still too restrictive, imho. Exempt all systems capacity 4 or less, or
eliminate the rule outright.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sci-Fi
> superheavies like the 40K Baneblade or the B5 GROPOS
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
[...]
> >And yes, it means that the second example MICV design on p.12 is
That is not a contradiction, you know. Under the rules as written (and as
explained by the main developer of the rules, Mike E.) the example design *is
illegal* (ie., the RAW contradict themselves); the fact that the rules as
written are also *flawed* (as evidenced by the fact that designs like
this "illegal" IFV are in service in the real world today) doesn't make the
example design any less illegal under the rules as written.
FWIW I fully agree with BB that the rules should be changed; but you have to
know what the rules actually say *now* before you can change the rules
in any meaningful way :-/
***
Personally I don't think that the "1 weapon per size class" is necessary at
all *if* you use the "elements can only fire 1 weapon per activation" rule. If
you allow vehicles to fire multiple weapons in a single activation, you'll
most likely run into problems with small vehicles overloaded with
GMS/L... but only because the GMS/L is underpriced (especially
capacity-wise; IMO GMSs (and SLAMs) should use reloads just like
artillery does).
***
> I think all SF rules with design methodologies are poorly designed or
Pah. I'll bet that in at least 90% of the cases these flaws in various vehicle
design systems had nothing to do with "compromise" or "simplicity",
but everything to do with *ignorance* - the rules authors simply didn't
know enough about what their rules were supposed to model to come up with
something realistic. In the specific DS2 case, I know for certain that the
rules authors' knowledge about the subject came mostly from Hammer's Slammers
and similar SF novels, which although (usually) based on
real-world combat experience do not give any particularly complete
picture of realistic restrictions on vehicle design.
Also for the DS2 case, your point about "paper-thin armour" misses the
target by roughly 180 degrees: with *today's* *thick* armour materials, we can
stuff more equipment (or men) into a smaller vehicle hull than DS2's
supposedly *more* advanced tech base allows us to do. If future armour is
so much more volume-efficient (and future weapons *don't* advance
correspondingly in penetrative power and thereby force the vehicle designers
to keep the armour thickness roughly unchanged), we ought to be able to put
*more* stuff (or men) into future vehicles than we can do today
- not *less*.
Since DS2 is supposed to be a *generic* game, ie. *not* tied to a specific
background with a specific tech base, it cannot decide "what is the
baseline (or 'virtual reality' if you prefer) of the game" - because
making that decision destroys its supposedly generic nature; if it is to be
generic it has to leave that choice to the *player* (or at least give him a
very wide array of choices). And that in turn means that since its
low-tech
options are supposed to cover tech similar to or slightly ahead of what we
have today, it really has to to allow the players to re-create today's
modern combat vehicles. At the moment DS2 doesn't. Hopefully DS3 will.
Regards,
Thanks for weighing in, OO. What would you suggest for capacities for gms
launchers & loads?
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
the fact that the rules
> as written are also *flawed* (as evidenced by the
*not* tied to a specific
> background with a specific tech base, it cannot
Hopefully DS3 will.
> Regards,
> B^3B wrote:
> Thanks for weighing in, OO. What would you suggest for
For the time being I use the current capacities and costs for the launcher
with a single missile loaded; half that for each reload. GMS/L infantry
get
their launcher only as part of their basic cost/size; if they want
reloads they have to buy them separately.
Yes, this adds book-keeping... but it is a *very* effective way of
explaining to non-military types why not every vehicle on the
battlefield
has at least one missile launcher :-/
Later,
Half points and capacity per reload? Ok, Ill try it. By the way, I emailed you
OL re: this issue in DS 3.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote: