> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:35:34 -0500 <warbeads@juno.com> writes:
<snip>
> Fusion powered GRAV or FGEV vehicles
Speed is life and unless you need to 'go into the woods' then these are the
fastest vehicles around.
> 4 vehicles to a platoon, 3 Platoons to a Company, 3 Companies to a
36 combat vehicles plus support units below). A little light in numbers you
say? Well, true but the trend has been smaller forces as the technology
increases so I projected this a tad bit smaller then most of the Cotu groups I
have. What do you guys run in your Battalion sized units?
> Light Mechanized Reconnaissance Company
This is the "Find them'" Company. Two different philosophies on the
recon/scout platoons - One is a "spot them before they spot you and run
away like a bat out of proverbial H _ _ _ if they do" and the other
has a 'sting' in case they can't outrun the people they find.
The LAT(R) provides some extra punch/ambush capability to the Recon
Company and for delaying actions.
> Mechanized Infantry Company
Your basic "take and hold" Mechanized Infantry force with an integral
support Platoon (12 inches fire on infantry gets - 5 chits - to remove
those pesky GMS/L teams and punch holes in the line infantry FTs,
hopefully.)
> Armored Company
I included this to show one trade off - reduced Firepower/range (54 to
48) to get an LAD integral to the vehicle and increased PDS quality. Worth it?
Maybe.
> AFV Platoons: Size 3, MDC-4, PDS/Enhanced, Superior ECM
For those of us who have been stung by "Firer down" more then we like this is
trade off of reduced chits (less punch for less catastrophic failures.)
> Company HQ unit (3 of them - one per Company)
Mortars at Company level seem advisable for a smaller number of combat units.
4 Chits allows more smoke counters.)
> Battalion Assets:
Assigned to those people needed to attack positions units that have had time
to dig in and higher command won't accept going around them.
> Battalion HQ Command:
Protection for the Battalion Commander and some possible long range
support from the VTOL pop-ups and the MDC-5 if they are on the map.
> attached Aero:
Mud Movers and across the table sniping/harassing.
> Attached Arty:
Hammers.
> Gracias,
Hi All,
I don't have a lot of commentary to add, but do have one of my battalions
written up. You can view it at
<http://okapi.andrew.cmu.edu/lerchey/www/DSII/8th.html>.
I put in the vehicle stats from memory, so I may be off a touch here or there,
but will try to get them updated this week, just to make sure that they're
accurate.
> 36 combat vehicles plus support units below). A little light in
So, my breadkdown is as follows...
4 Command MICVs, 24 MBTs, 12 Tank Destroyers, 12 Support (SLAM) tanks, 6
Artillery (plus ammo tenders), 6 APCs (with PA units), 5 ADS, 2 ARV, 8 Recon,
4 Gunships (VTOL).
I had originally planned this for OGRE games, but modified a lot of stuff so
that I could use it, or elements of it, in stock DSII games.
J
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> So, my breadkdown is as follows...
Are the SLAM tanks that useful? I took one look at 'em in the rulebook and
said "Nope." Are they that effective? What role do you use them in?
Personally, I think it's a bit light on the APC numbers, but total infantry
elements is adequate. Big APCs just make me nervous, that's all.
They're good for targeting APC's, as the splash can take out the dismounted
infantry at long range (as you can't target the infantry directly). They're
also good for taking out ZAD vehicles, as they can't shoot the subminitions
down.
Brendan 'Neath southern skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
> So, my breadkdown is as follows...
Hi John,
I'm not sure I'd say that the SLAM tanks are that useful, but they are kind of
neat. The model that I'm using is a combine Banshee missile tank.
It's a low, flat track with a large twin-linked rocket pod on it. I
could use them as GMSs, but I think that this fits better. Or, in other words,
no, they aren't as useful, but I like 'em.
They are used as support vehicles. They're not fast enough to do hit and run,
so I try to position them to support an armor assult. At medium and long range
they can hit multiple targets which makes them a bit more
useful. And being /4s doesn't hurt, despite the fact that as SLAMs they
don't have that good a color set for chit validity.
I went with the APCs based on the model. It's a large hover truck. I need to
do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still can't figure out why
the designers made open backed APCs...), and I have a limited number of them.
I agree that it causes an "all the eggs in one basket" problem, but I'm
willing to live with it.
Yeah, that too.:)
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> They're good for targeting APC's, as the splash can take out the
> I went with the APCs based on the model. It's a large hover truck. I
> need to do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still
I was adapting my Ogre stuff to DS II as well, and I was thinking of arguing
that the open backed GEV-PC's were special designed for PA troops. PA
troops could fire without modifier from the back of the APC as long as it
didn't move to fast, and they could dismount and move easier from the open
back. When you think about it, the small amount of extra armor from an APC
wouldn't help PA that much, but it would hinder their movement.
Grant,
Yes, I agree with your logic, but IMHO, it makes for a sucky looking
transport.:) They look like hover trucks, and not APCs. If I can manage to put
a covered box on the back, I think that I can justify the "A" in APC.
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> I went with the APCs based on the model. It's a large hover truck.
I
> need to do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still
When you
> think about it, the small amount of extra armor from an APC wouldn't
> Grant,
in
> APC.
Ah, well you can just change "armored" to "armed" and they work quite nice
as is! :-)
I dunno, they appealed to my sense of how the infantry would work with an all
GEV force. The foot infantry stick with the tracks and regular APC's, and the
PA ride in open top GEV's for max mobility and egress. I don't remember all
the particular's, but I do remember that I was going to give the PA more
options for fire and getting on and off, and that they were not going to get
any top cover from artillery fire. I thought it balanced fine.
grant
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
I
> >> need to do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still
PA troops
> > could fire without modifier from the back of the APC as long as it
When you
> > think about it, the small amount of extra armor from an APC wouldn't
Yeah, that's a good point, and well, it would mean that I would not have
to do any conversions. :) I'll consider leaving them as-is unless I
have a little brain storm that screams "Do this! It's easy!":)
Thanks,
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Grant,
in
> APC.
I
> need to do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still
PA troops
> could fire without modifier from the back of the APC as long as it
When you
> think about it, the small amount of extra armor from an APC wouldn't
I had another thought about that question of whether my SLAM/4 armed
missile tanks are "effective and efficient". Well, maybe they aren't, but
then, cost effectiveness is not always what I have in mind when building
(some of you shudder...)
As a historical gamer I often found it interesting to play sides with...
problems or limits. For example, playing early WWII games (North Africa) I
freqently played the British, despite the fact that their Cruiser tanks fell
apart regularly, the Matilidas were so damned slow that they may as well have
been pillboxes, almost no tank that they had fired
high explosive, and that the Germans had a much better integrated and flexible
command structure. Playing the Brits and doing well was a challenge. Likewise,
in the Napoleonic era, I played the Russians. The
French had it all over them, but they were neat. I loved the
semi-immobile masses, big (though not that effective) guns, and the fact
that while could barely manuever (comparatively), they would stand and hold
forever.
So, for my SLAM tanks, yeah, I could likely design something more efficient
and cost effective, but that wouldn't necessarily make them more fun to play
with.
:)
J
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> then, cost effectiveness is not always what I have
No, BUT...
What does the prevalence of SLAM-armed vehicles say
about your force? What does it say about their society, about their doctrine,
and about their beliefs regarding military power?
For instance: In WWII, the British had two types of bad tank. Infantry Tanks
and Cruiser Tanks. This
reflects the (badly flawed) pre-war British
understanding of the nature of armored warfare. It is interesting for that
reason. The Brits did not set out to build crap tanks, they just had a skewed
opinion of what would be useful.
Modern terms: Soviet tanks have a lot short-cuts
taken in order to make them easy to produce. This is due to their view on the
violence of modern warfare.
US tanks (M-1 family at least) were built to be really
damn good with very little worries about budgetary problems. This reflects US
emphasis on small
high-tech forces which can maul much larger ones.
Oddly enough, the US emphasis is much more
cost-effective. Before people start screeching about
how it ain't really, remember our track record vs. Russkie armor. The most
expensive army in the world
is the one that comes in second-place when someone
else comes calling.
DSII: The NRE uses stealth. I know OO insists it is overpriced and I'm
shooting myself in the foot, but it reflects a doctrine which tries to
preserve the very valuable, relatively few, and very highly trained troopers
driving those vehicles.
> challenge. Likewise, in the Napoleonic era, I
I really do think that this view of Russian troops
(reinforced by most Nappy-era games) is exaggerated,
and that the Russians were for the most part not much worse than any of
Napoleon's other opponents.
> > challenge. Likewise, in the Napoleonic era, I
Hmm, I'm not so sure. It does seem that Napoleonic Russian doctrine was
less flexible than the French (everyone's was :-) ), and that would
certainly lead to a decreased maneuverability on the unit level. The Russian
troops were pretty good though. I'm starting to wonder if that a lot of the
Russian ability to hold ground was because their guns were really very
numerous and fairly effective, and tended to chew up attacks before they hit
hard. It ends up working basically the same, just a different mechanism.
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Well, among other things, it says that they favor a "saturation" type
weapon over the (probabley more costly in $) accurate GMS. Part of
that
could be doctrine - quasi artillery that can hit multiple targets with
splash damage - and part of it could be poor military expenditure
thinking - it's cheaper to field rockets than it is to field missiles,
so if we put enough of 'em out there, it's gotta be ok!.
To be fair (or whatever) I designed this force of what I had sitting in a box
when I decided that I wanted to build a DSII OGRE force. The banshee looks (to
me) more like a saturation rocket weapon than the P.E. missile
tank does. The banshee has twin (connected) boxes that are reminiscent of
rocket pods, while the P.E. missile tank has three missiles on rails.
It *looks* like a SLAM to me.:)
> For instance: In WWII, the British had two types of
Absolutely. No argument at all. By the same token, it was pretty clear
that the French during that period were fully prepared to win WWI. Sadly for
them, the Germans were gearing up for WWII.:) I've found that my SLAMs are not
terribley effective against OGREs, but that's ok, 'cause the missile tanks in
OGRE were not that effective in the original game. Thus,
my Combine political and military leaders have/had a skewed opinion on
the
merits of the SLAM vs the GSM/H. :)
> Modern terms: Soviet tanks have a lot short-cuts
Right. And I don't this particular force to be quite up to current U.S.
standards. I look at them as being fairly good and competent, but not quite
cutting edge. Thus, the MBTs have HKPs instead of MDCs (OGRE secondary
batteries are MDCs, so I wanted the MBTs to be not quite as good), but OTOH,
the tank destroyers do have MDCs, albeit in a fixed mount (those things look
like Swedish S tanks!). I wanted them to have punch beyond what the normal
tank has, in the same way that the WWII M36 with
its 90mm punched harder than the 75mm/76mm gun on the Sherman.
> DSII: The NRE uses stealth. I know OO insists it is
I use stealth in some of my vehicles as well, but not all on all of them. I
think that sometimes that die shift will save your bacon, so when it does, it
was worth it.:)
> challenge. Likewise, in the Napoleonic era, I
I agree with that as well. However, most rules don't. Thus, if you're going to
play Russians, you're going to have to suffer the stereotypes of the rule
writers. Rather than whine about how the Russians should be better than the
rules allow, I have done what I can to try to win within
the rules limits. Mostly, the Russian command was inferior and thus, more
static and less flexible, which is reflected in the rules I gamed with, so it
was always in my best interest to have a really strong starting position.
Worked pretty well. I just never *expect* my Russians to act like French, so
I'm not disappointed.
Similarly, I don't expect my SLAM tanks to act like GSMs, so again, while I
may not be delighted with the number of kills they pull, I don't have any
false expectations, and try to use them where they'll do some good.
:)
> challenge. Likewise, in the Napoleonic era, I
> John
Only at Boridino (in front of Moscow) did the Russians decide to dig in and
even there they did not give Napoleon a deciseive victory (they did not commit
the Russian Guard and left the battle field with a weakened but intact army).
Most wargame rules are all battle with little campaign and no logistics built
in.
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> To be fair (or whatever) I designed this force of
Digging through my OGRE minis I find I agree.
> Absolutely. No argument at all. By the same token,
And would have! Char 1s would be really great to break through trench lines
defended by machine gun nests. The French fielded a force any officer in 1917
or 1918 would have loved to have and probably would have won the war.
> for them, the Germans were gearing up for WWII. :)
I'm a GEV addict in the original game. Can't have that, I end up with SHVY and
HVY and very little finesse. Missle tanks are just too slow in my opinion.
> quite cutting edge. Thus, the MBTs have HKPs
Which mini is that?
> I use stealth in some of my vehicles as well, but
Yeah, some things just feel right regardless of what statistical analysis
says. And I trust my instincts.
> I agree with that as well. However, most rules
Is it just me or can you sit down with every single
in-print Nappy game (and all the OOP ones too) and
determine which nation the designer has stacks and stacks of lead for, and
which ones he just can't work up the interest to buy lead for?
> Similarly, I don't expect my SLAM tanks to act like
Oh, yeah. Sounds good.
Roman doctrine is pretty focused on killing the enemy's main armor. I justify
every vehicle in terms of how do I kill the enemy's tanks with it. The IFVs
carry infantry which carries GMS. I use them like old dragoons, racing ahead
to sieze crappy terrain in good positions and harassing the enemy with missile
fire from them. Everything else is focused on either
killing tanks or protecting the tank-killers. So we'd
never build SLAM-armed vehicles.
Whence comes this focus? Well, from a jaundiced view of the utility of light
infantry alone except in exceptional circumstances. And from a strategic
doctrine focused on seizing resources and population centers intact. Far
better to smash up some armored
units with precision fire than to focus on dug-in
infantry because cleaning them out is a mess. But if you chew up the armor
units then the infantry has very
little choice but to die in place--no tactical
mobility, little long-range firepower, and no ability
to protect their logistics. Besides which, infantry comes in two flavors.
Numerous and crappy, or good but few and far between. The crappy infantry
flees before armor, and you can bypass the guys that know what end of their
weapons get hot.
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Yup. :)
> I'm a GEV addict in the original game. Can't have
Yup. That's why they're "Slow Tracked" for DSII.:)
> quite cutting edge. Thus, the MBTs have HKPs
It's the Combine Yankee light tank. You can likely see a pic of it at
warehouse 23. The ones I'm using as Tank Destroyers are actually larger
(Ral Partha) than the warehouse 23 ones, but are designed about the same. I
have no idea of why the ones from SJG are smaller, but I use the smaller
ones as MICV/command tanks.
> I agree with that as well. However, most rules
It's not just you. Most napoleonic rule writers think that Napoleon was
infallable, and that his troops were better than anyone elses around. Then
some will be Anglofiles, and that's about it.:)
J
> >
> warehouse 23. The ones I'm using as Tank Destroyers are actually
The RP light tanks are virtually the same size as the regular "heavy" tanks,
but are supposed to be smaller one man tanks along the lines of the
GEV-LGEV
idea. SJG made the newer ones smaller to be more in line with their
description.
> >> I agree with that as well. However, most rules
Considering that Nappy managed to kick all of Europe around for the better
part of 15 years, I'm not sure that the rule writers are that far off. Since
most gamers actively dislike modelling command and control at all, blending
the poor commanders of the non-french into their troops is the only way
to
get close to a semi-historical result for those troops. The individual
French trooper may not have been much better than his foes, but his commanders
were *much* better than almost everyone they faced for an extended period of
time.
> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
> Considering that Nappy managed to kick all of
Bonaparte was, OK, a good tactician. Where he
excelled was at operational level--the marching around
before a battle. Many of his battles were pretty much foregone conclusions
because he set them up so that his opponents wouldn't have a hope in hell.
Which makes for really boring wargames.
> most gamers actively dislike modelling command and
Yeah...
> the poor commanders of the non-french into their
That and the simple fact that practically no gamer is as good as Nappy or
Murat or Wellington etc, and so when you have two tactical mediocrities
slamming masses of troops (most Napoleonic era games I've seen
are troops shoulder-to-shoulder from one end of the
board to the other).