G'day,
Some vehicles from Brian. Though my childhood TV viewing habits mean I
will never be able to take any F-troop seriously ;)
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
Sorry to interrupt the Napoleonics Discussion, but I thought I'd submit my own
unit for critique:
(Hey, at least the names of units are Napoleonic inspired!)
Vehicles of the Cascadian Army Cavalry:
TG-1 Timber Wolf Cavalry Tank
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant Systems
MDC-4, Enhanced PDS, APSW
TGA-2 Coyote Cavalry SPAAG
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Basic ECM, No DF FireCon, Redundant Systems Enhanced ADS,
APSW
PG-1 Bobcat Cavalry APC
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Superior ECM, Enhanced FireCon, Redundant Systems
MDC-1, PA Element, SPDS, APSW
CG-1 Lynx Cavalry Command Vehicle
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3R, Stealth 2, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant Systems
MDC-1, Command Module, SPDS, APSW
AG-1 Husky Cavalry AT FSV
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant Systems
DFFG-2, 2 GMSH's, APSW
AG-2 Fox Cavalry Scout Vehicle
Class 2, Anti-Grav
Armor 2, Stealth 1, Superior ECM, Enhanced FireCon, Redundant systems,
Artillery Designator MDC 2, GMSH, APSW
EG-1 Appaloosa AEV
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Superior ECM, Basic FireCon, Redundant Systems ARV &
Excavation Equipment
EG-2 Elk AEV
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stealth 0, Superior ECM, Basic FireCon, Redundant Systems Breaching
Gun [House Rules], Gravitic Pulse Array [DSII Rules: Mine Plow], APSW
AV-7 Osprey V Attack Craft
Class 4 VTOL Armor 2 Stealth 3, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant
Systems 4 GMSH's, APSW
AV-8 Redtail Gunship
Class 3 VTOL Armor 1 Stealth 2, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant
Systems HEL 3 (fixed), 2 GMSH's, APSW, FO Capable
ASV-12 Spotted Owl Scout Craft
Class 3 VTOL Armor 1 Stealth 2, Superior ECM, Superior FireCon, Redundant
Systems MDC 1, 2 GMSH's, APSW, FO Capable
3rd Squadron, 4th Cascadian Cavalry
A Troop (Curaissers) 3 Lances: 4 Timber Wolves
B Troop (Dragoons) 3 Lances: 4 Bobcats; 4 PA Infantry (2 Rifle, 1 GMS, 1 APSW)
C Troop (Dragoons) 3 Lances: 4 Bobcats; 4 PA Infantry (2 Rifle, 1 GMS, 1 APSW)
D Troop (Lancers) 3 Lances: 1 Coyote; 3 Huskies
E Troop (Air Cav) 2 Lances: 2 Osprey V's 1 Lance: 2 Redtails 1 Lance: 2
Spotted Owls
F Troop (Hussars) 3 Lances: 4 Foxes
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> A Troop (Curaissers)
Where's troop headquarters? It's hard enough to fight a tank and a company, it
would be overwhelming to fight a tank, a lance, and a troop. Same for all
following units. It would be more pronounced because with the large number of
troops your squadron HQ would be a little overwhelmed.
> B Troop (Dragoons)
You're kind of short on dismounts, but if this is to be a cavalry units rather
than mech infantry then it is about right.
> D Troop (Lancers)
Is this administrative, or tactical? If tactical, it is a bit odd. The Coyote
is your AA gun, Huskies your AT missile launcher. You probably wouldn't want
them deployed in the same place. In fact, the AA would need to be distributed
through the force structure. As large a unit as this is you'll probably want
more than three guns (I use six in a smaller battalion) and have them
parcelled out in ones and twos. Personally I'd have a lance of Huskies
attached to each troop of dragoons and a pair of coyote lances attached to
squadron HQ troop.
> Command Troop
No organic mortars? I think that's a mistake. 6-9
would be appropriate for a unit of this size.
Smoke--instant concealment is GOOD. I'd also include
dismounts with your pioneers as well. Short on
recovery assets also--probably 1-2 recovery vehicle
per troop would be better, given that this unit looks intended to fight pretty
distributed.
I didn't add up the points, but your VTOL gunships have got to be in the
neighborhood of 500 points for the cheaper ones. That's a lot of eggs in one
basket, but it also looks to be hellishly effective. Do you
permit one vehicle to target GMS/Hs on multiple
targets? If so, cool. If not then 4 on one VTOL is overkill.
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Good question for Real Life (tm), but what difference does it make in
DSII? You don't need anything other than a squad/lance leader and a
force
commander - and the force commander is optional. :P
> Command Troop
I hadn't thought about organic mortars in my Combine Battalion, but that's not
a bad idea at all. Of course, I have to figure out what to put them
in/on... It would be nice to have a light mortar vehicle. :)
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Good question for Real Life (tm), but what
If you have to ask...
G'day,
Brian's latest thoughts...
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Where's troop headquarters?
Good point. What would you suggest, in game terms?
> You're kind of short on dismounts, but if this is to
Cavalry in the Cascadian scheme of things servers three main purposes: first
is the traditional cavalry role. Secondly, it will serve as a
rapid-deployment main force. Third, it serves as the main garrison
force on smaller colonies. In the last two roles, your comment is duly noted
and will be addressed.
> Is this administrative, or tactical?
Tactical
> The Coyote is your AA gun, Huskies your
Good point. I like your suggestion, and will probably field some version of
it.
> No organic mortars? I think that's a mistake.
I was actually considfering an organic lance of even heavier artillery, but
thought it might be overkill. Duly noted.
Maybe a whole Pioneer troop?
As for the VTOL's, that's where I'm most open to suggestions. The high number
of GMS is designed to flood ZADS.
So, I had commented earlier that there is no real role for the company
commander in DSII. Basically, the unit commander controls the Leadership and
Quality of the unit, and is built in. The force commander isn't *required* and
only provides the ability to rally, and to cause a massive confidence test in
the event of his demise.
I've come up with something that I think would make command elements, at
the company level and force level more interesting and more valuable.
If you're so inclined, please take a look at:
G'day,
> I've come up with something that I think would make command
I like it in principle and have only skimmed it so far, but one comment
"Commanders may, through force of will and training, lead their units to
perform above and beyond the expected norm. This is accomplished by the
Command element (Company or Force) having "command chits". Command chits are
assigned based on the Leadership Rating of the command element.
E.g., a (Green-1/Blue-1/Orange-1) command element gets 1 command chit. A
(Green-2/Blue-2/Orange-2) command element gets 2 command chits. A
(Green-3/Blue-3/Orange-3) command element gets 3 command chits.
Command chits may be used to attempt to give a unit in the direct chain of
command down an extra action. "
Doesn't this mean the worst leaders (grade 3) get the most chances to pull
something out of the hat? Or was this done on purpose to counteract their
greater chance of failure on each attempt?
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Offhand, 2 armored vehicles of same type as the unit, 1 APC fitted out as an
ambulance, and as an independant vehicle, a forward observer (so you don't
have to waste a unit's activation calling for fire). The last can be omitted
in the scout company where everyone can call fire.
> the main garrison force on smaller colonies. In the
Oooh, in that one it is easy to fix. Add a troop of.
. . err. . . Mounted Rifles. Light APC/IFVs with
(non-PA?) infantry.
> Maybe a whole Pioneer troop?
For cavalry, overkill. If it were a main force maneuver BN, I would suggest
it.
> As for the VTOL's, that's where I'm most open to
If there's that many ZADs, then you have to do something. I hadn't thought
about that. My opponents don't usually field more than a couple ZADs.
> So, I had commented earlier that there is no real role for the
Some interesting thoughts, John - with certain parallels to a few
ideas I've recently been working on myself - more on these at some
later date.... ;-)
As Beth has mentioned, I think you may have got the allocation of the
command chits backwards - shouldn't it be Leadership 1 = 3 chits, 2 =
2, 3 = 1 chit?
Now you've got me thinking about DS2/DS3 again, when I should be
doing other stuff.... <mutter, mutter> ;-)
Beth and Jon,
Thanks for pointing that out. I shouldn't write while I'm tired.:)
I've fixed it. I reversed the number of chits so that better is better,
and have made the command ranges static based on type of commander (24" for
company commanders, 36" for force commanders).
John
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> So, I had commented earlier that there is no real role for the
;-)
> As Beth has mentioned, I think you may have got the allocation of the
> Now you've got me thinking about DS2/DS3 again, when I should be
And since DS2 will be soon in Word format, it won't be too hard to do DS3!
:)
> At 10:38 PM -0700 6/22/04, John Atkinson wrote:
Actually, I like to attach an FO element to my scout units for extra efforts.
The Scouts make their call for fire, pop their smoke and beat feet when they
find the red guys.
I'l also have independant FO elements moving around with my armor companies as
additional eyes up for the Artillery.
> At 10:27 AM +1000 6/21/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> PG-1 Bobcat Cavalry APC
How about one more element.
Bison Counter Battery Vehicle
Class 3, Anti-Grav
Armor 3, Stelth 0, Superior ECM, Redundant Systems Counter Battery Radar
System (Superior?), APSW
Attach one to your artillery unit for counter battery support.
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
<http://okapi.andrew.cmu.edu/lerchey/www/DSII/command.html>
I had some thoughts along this line, but this is better thought out than what
I was going with.
Good job. I like it.
G'day,
More from Brian;)
Beth
> John K Lerchey Wrote:
> The force commander isn't
I haven't had time to check out your HR's yet, but this actually touches on a
couple things that've been irking me:
1. I've read some archives in the past that addressed an interesting
question, but never saw an official or semi-official ruling.
What happens if you field 2 or more dedicated c3 vehicles? Does that prevent
the effects of losing one of them?
2. The flavor text for the game describes a very futuristic, advanced
tech level for C3, yet some very serious morale repercussions for
the loss of a vehicle that, according to the fluff, doesn't even necessarily
carry the actual force commander. It seems to me that given the level of
advancement in the future, there are several possible levels of C3 available,
I'll break them down into the three most common, using already established DS
terms: A. Basic C3: The rules as they stand. B. Enhanced C3: The C3 vehicle is
only a mobile communications relay
vehicle, the actual CO is somewhere far from the battle. Loss of the
vehicle will have an effect, but not as severe as the rules now. C. Superior
C3: The C3 gear has become so miniaturized and powerful that ever vehicle in
the force can carry a full set of relays, and the
force serves as a net - no dedicated C3 vehicle is needed, the force
commander is far from the battle, and the loss of any vehicle has no effect on
the command ability.
3. In any situation where both sides field the same number of C3 vehicles and
have the same level of C3, it doesn't seem that there's any need to cost the
C3 module itself, since both sides gain the same exact advantage from it. If
you have different levels of opposing C3, the cost should be a modifier to the
overall force, not a cost for the vehicle itself, unless you are fielding a
force with basic or enhanced C3, and a redundant C3 vehicle, in which case the
extra vehicles should have an extra cost.
> John Atkinson Wrote:
> Offhand, 2 armored vehicles of same type as the unit,
Hmmm.... That could work, it would require a few more purchases, but I could
manage.
> 1 APC fitted out as an ambulance,
I'll probably design an unarmed APC, maybe with a PDS, for this purpose.
and as an
> independant vehicle, a forward observer (so you don't
Makes sense.
> The last can be omitted in the scout company where
Yup. What about an ARV and a ZADS?
> Oooh, in that one it is easy to fix. Add a troop of.
Makes sense, I prefer the term "Light Horse Infantry".
Also, garrison cavalry isn't as grav- intensive, vehicles vary according
to climate & terrain.
> Maybe a whole Pioneer troop?
Hmmm.... Tough to find the happy medium between too many and not enough.
A troop seems fine, if you include all the jobs, and especially in situations
where the Cav is the main force. One Lance of APC's with boot engineers, one
lance with ARV's, and one lance with demo and mineplows?
> If there's that many ZADs, then you have to do
All my play has been solitaire, so I don't know how many ZAD's most people
field.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Actually, I like to attach an FO element to my
Not necessary to * attach * an FO to a Cascadian Cav Scout lance, all CasCav
scout vehicle crews are FO trained.
> How about one more element.
Almost identical to the vehicle I had in mind, as part of the command lance of
my arty troop. The only problem is the name.
Cascadian (Pacific Northwest of North America - BC, Oregon, WA, AK,
Northern CA, non-Tuffleyverse) vehicle naming protocol:
Bovine, equine, and Cervid (deer, elk, etc.) names for engineering and
transport vehicles. Line combat vehicles are all predators: Ursine for tracked
Tanks, canine for grav direct fire vehicles, feline for APC's, rodent and
other small predators for other fire support. Artillery vehicles are named
after PNW Native American mythical beasts and versions of them from popular US
culture: Sasquatch, Bigfoot, etc. The vehicle you've described is the Hamatsa.
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> 1. I've read some archives in the past that addressed an interesting
> A. Basic C3: The rules as they stand.
This is an interesting idea.
I may take a stab at writing up something along these lines as an advanced set
of C3 rules.:)
Let's see, so for A, I would pretty much leave things exactly like they are in
DSII.
For B, maybe increase the cost by 50%, but make loss of command vehicle a
base-level (threat 0) confidence test. If there were orders in DSII,
I'd have it impact the ability to issue new ones. In conjunction with my
command rules, I'd have the command element lose it's command chits
until/unless a new command relay could be established.
For C, I'd think a surcharge (%) of the overall force cost, or maybe a staic
cost (3 points?) per element, and no impact for loss of command, since all
elements are tied into the command net. I would still, I think, have the
player designate a single vehicle as the overall commander, and
have a temporary disruption of some kind in the event that it's killed. Much
like the loss of a unit command element, which is replaced immediately.
Neat idea.
Thanks!
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> >The last can be omitted in the scout company where
Well, there should be 1 recovery vehicle per line
company and 2-3 more in a "recovery team". As a
general rule of thumb. ZADs, you got plenty of.
> Hmmm.... Tough to find the happy medium between too
ARVs as Engineers... I dunno. The jobs are not simillar. Your ARVs should be
staffed by mechanics. Now, in the UK those are REME (IIRC), the Royal
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers not to be confused with Royal Engineers.
In US, they are Ordnance Corps. Dunno where the Canadians put 'em. Either way,
they have a totally different role than combat engineers or assault pioneers
or whatever you want to call them. They should be operationally subordinate to
whoever is responsible for unit maintinence, not the battalion engineer.
> At 10:07 PM -0700 6/24/04, John Atkinson wrote:
Sappers are not REMEs.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/ or http://usite.army.mod.uk/REME/index.htm
http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/
> Now, in the UK those are REME (IIRC), the Royal
And they'd typically run about in two types of vehicles. I know for a fact
that the Aussies still use a REME (RAEME in assie speak) LAD and heavy
recovery teams. The Light Aid Detachment (or in Aussie speak, LRT Light
Recovery Team) would run around in an M113 (Fitter Track). They're able to
take care of most minor problems that doesn't involve the removal of larger
powerpacks or heavy recovery duties. The heavy recovery vehicle is there to
handle larger issues that the LAD or FRT can't handle.
This pattern goes all the way back to WWII where they'd run LAD out of bren
carriers and use heavier wheeled soft skin vehicles for the heavy tasks. Some
specialist armored recovery vehicles were made, but those were fairly
specialized and were (usually) built out of vehicles partially written off
(turrets all but destroyed, etc).
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/alex011.html
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/alex010.html
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/alex016.html
You could fit out your normal APC with some kind of smaller crane and perhaps
a static version with a tent to represent a night post for repairs (perhaps
outside the scope of DSII?)
> Yup. What about an ARV and a ZADS?
Does that apply to both mechanized infantry and armoured forces?
If you have, for example, vehicles based around the new Striker wheeled
chassis (LAV III), do you have the same number of ARVs as you would for a
tracked unit with M1's and Bradleys (or equivalent)?
> Either way, they
FWIW, "assault pioneers" and "combat engineers" in the CF are separate (and in
the British army too, I think...). An infantry battalion has a platoon of
assault pioneers, who are infantrymen crosstrained in basic combat
engineering tasks (mine removal, demo, emplacements - that kind of
stuff). You'd get actual combat engineers at the Brigade level (I believe they
attach an engineer Field Squadron to each brigade) but then there might be
smaller units at the battalion battle group level depending on mission, where
they were sent, etc. Having said that, I also think the CF has
recently decided as a cost-cutting measure to take the assault pioneers
out of the infantry units and *just* have engineer units. For that matter, I
heard they're taking the *mortars* out of the infantry battalions and giving
them to the artillery... more government stupidity because of bad policy...
<grumble> but that's another story...
> At 4:51 PM -0400 6/25/04, Adrian Johnson wrote:
It depends. You could probably get by with an equivalent wheeled vehicle for
heavy recovery purposes. You'll still need a similar number of ARVs and
Wreckers. Just make sure your ARVs or soft skinned Recovery vehicles are the
same size or larger for correct capacity.
G'day,
And more from Brian;)
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
> Yup. What about an ARV and a ZADS?
> Well, there should be 1 recovery vehicle per line
Attached to the command lance but autonomous, I assume? One of the problems
with the DSII unit cohesion and morale rules is that they don't do very well
in situations where an element is best used in smaller
sub-units, or should be readily attachable and detachable from other
units -- ZADS and ARV's come to mind quite readily.
<Side note from Beth: Along with the command rules suggested the other day,
what about a detachment houserule?>
> and 2-3 more in a "recovery team". As a
How about 1 administrative lance of four, separated into 2 game-terms
units of 2 each?
> ZADs, you got plenty of.
True. I', still getting a feel for how many I should run and how I should
organize them.
> ARVs as Engineers. . . I dunno. The jobs are not
OK, so one lance of engineers: two sublances of one AEV and one APC of foot
engineers each?
I'm still working on my air cave troop configuration, I picked up some more
VTOL's this weekend (was in Portland, cleaned out the last of
Bridgetown's Future Wars stock -- all two packs). So now I have two
aitrframes: I have six of the wide, flat GZG design (four with wing
pods, tow without), and six of the narrow, two-seat, gunship a la
cobra/apache/Tigre (two woth wing pods, six without). I'll figure
something out.
I also had an idea for the light arty lance. I was going to try to find
some sort of tube turret or open-backed mortar carrier. But instead, I
came up with a RAM design that makes it look like a rocket launcher
instead. I have some of the LRM-5 launchers from some Battletech Badger
omnitanks (and 8 leftover badger hulls, if someone wants to trade somehting
for them). I', mounting them on some grav hulls (ok, they're supposed to be
GEV, but they look close enough to Grav). I decided on the following design:
AG-7 Wendigo
Class 3 Grav Armor 3 stealth 0 superior ECM Superior FireCon Redundant systems
Light Artillery, SLAM-3 (fixed mount), 1 extra artillery mission, APSW.
The SLAM rationale: both it and the light artillery are the same
system: a non-guided multiple rocket launcher, that can be fired in
direct OR indirect fire modes.
My APC's are made from plastic RenLeg TOG Aenas light tanks, with turrets from
two different modern light AFV's. The turrets are similar but not identical.
I'm trying to find a way to explain this without having to make them two
different weapons turrets.
For the Husky AT FSV's, I'll probably buy some of the C-in-C metal Aenas
-- same hull, and a tyurret that looks exactly like the Husky's
configuration: 2 GMSH and a DFFG 2.
> At 10:06 AM +1000 6/29/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
It just depends. I've never seen a problem where an element (single vehicle)
would operate alone or near a command unit. Usually the Coy SGT or some other
senior NCO of a Coy would be running around with such an element riding herd.
Or so I've read.
Basically, if you want your ARV to be independent, run it independently. Don't
stick it in the COmmand platoon as there is typically a HQ platoon and a coy
HQ in many TOE's that are different. One is the command unit for the Company
(the HQ platoon) and the other is the administrative and service support
element for the company.
> OK, so one lance of engineers: two sublances of one AEV and one APC of
I'll have a pair or three of tracks (2 apcs, one specialist vehicle) if I have
combat engineer support in a game. Usually one is a tank with a short barrel
(AVRE) that is used for combat demolitions. There is another that has a raised
superstructure on a typical tank that I postulate has the equivalent of other
specialized demolition gear as
well, plus the usual 2-3 tracks of APCs. It depends on the game as to
how I'll allocate them. There's also a big class V AVLB that I run around
sometimes for obstacle crossing.
Then there are several ZADs and other elements that I run.
1 ZAD is attached to the Brigade HQ.
1 ZAD is semi-attached to the on-table artillery
1 ZAD is allocated to the secondary Brigade HQ if it's on table (sometimes
I'll run two Armored Command Vehicles)
2-4 ZADs are semi-attached to the line companies. Usually they move
forwards as support elements independent with their own command markers
(usually blue or green 3s).
If I'm running an ARV or two, they're running around on their own as they
would be in RL. They have their own command chit as well.
> I'm still working on my air cave troop configuration, I picked up some
Wing pods add SLAMs. No Wing Pods run a gun with a few weapons. I have slicks,
gunships and light gunships as well. 6 Yellow Jackets from Ral Partha that
have added pods on the side representative of
GMS/H Launchers, a dozen slick VTOLs from GZG, and 2 smaller Ral
Partha Helos that act as scouts for the Yellow Jackets. There are also some
large Class 5 Tilt Rotors that I bought from ral partha for transporting class
1 vehicles or a whole slew of infantry.
> I also had an idea for the light arty lance. I was going to try to
Take an APC, stick a tube on the back. The Tube is gimballed to fire
vertically to nearly 45 degrees from an enclosed space inside. Magazine fed
and automaticly loaded. The crew inside roll up, double check the barrel for
obstructions and then hit "GO" for the fire mission that the Brigade or Btn
TOC has assigned to them via the command net.
> instead. I have some of the LRM-5 launchers from some Battletech
I run SLAMS as a basic multi shot ZUNI Rocket launcher. Not terribly useful on
the table. I'd rather pay the points in a ground unit as a
GMS/H launcher with a smaller hull and better point fire (lots of
GMS/H are great for killing something you want dead dead dead).
Anything that I'd run as a SLAM unit on the ground I postulate as artillery
instead and run it as Rocklet artillery.
> My APC's are made from plastic RenLeg TOG Aenas light tanks, with
One has a GMSH and RFAC2 and the other has a GMS/L and an RFAC2. (one
is a MICV, one is a scout vehicle with more teeth for dealing with Red Force
Recce units) I've run some of them as my ZAD for the grav force that I run as
my ersatz OU force. A whole company of light grav MICVs, 2 platoons of heavy
grav tanks, 1 platoon of light grav tanks, and 1 platoon of more heavily armed
MICVs as part of the scouts. There is one MICV that was converted to an ARV, 4
that are modified as ZAD, one turretless MICV used as an ACV (lots of
antennas) and 4 heavy tanks modified for use as class 4 artillery with a CBR
element attached.
The force was fun running a large table over the beach assault against a
friend.
G'day,
Brian's first message for the day;)
Beth
By the way his response to my question about towing was "Technicaly yes,
although I think those rules are flawed, and I think that would be a cheesy
out."
So there goes that idea;P
> [quoted text omitted]
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Attached to the command lance but autonomous, I assume? One of the
> It just depends. I've never seen a problem where an element (single
Ah, but in DS II this requires that you make it a single-element unit.
I suppose it's unavoidable.
> OK, so one lance of engineers: two sublances of one AEV and one APC of
I'm trying to keep the CasCav 4-element lance scheme going, but it
sounds very similar to what I had in mind. The AEV is a MBT variant with a
mine plough
and a DFFG instead of the standard MDC -- the DFFG serving as the
breaching gun.
> Then there are several ZADs and other elements that I run.
Similar to what I'll probably go with -- one ZADS in the Squadron HQ
Troop, and one AAA administrative lance with 4 ZADS spread
> Wing pods add SLAMs. No Wing Pods run a gun with a few weapons.
It's not the weapon configuration on the VTOL's that's stumping me, it's the
question of how to organize them in w away that doesn't look piecemeal.
I think it just came to me:
For the 4 flats with pods, it's easy (And not at all what I originallt
planned): Class 3, 2 SLAM 3's and a MDC 1 in a chin turret. the 2 slicks I'll
probably run as Casevac. The 6 snakes, well, the 4 with podless wings will get
pods, and they'll be class 2 with twin GMSH's. The two with wing pods, the
pods are too flat for rocket launchers, so they're lasers. One is a targeting
laser for Arty FO, 1 is a
forward-firing HEL.
Air Cav troop - 2 lances of 2 snakes, 2 lances of 2 Gunships, 1 lance of
2 scouts.
> I also had an idea for the light arty lance. I was going to try to
Basically what the design I've come up with does, except the tube is housed in
a box, and all you see is the mizzle.
> I run SLAMS as a basic multi shot ZUNI Rocket launcher. Not terribly
I decided against the SLAM's, for a couple reasons - including he fact
that I miscalculated the capacity for an extra arty mission. So the new light
mortar carrier has a Light arty piece and two extra salvos (total of 5
missions).
> My APC's are made from plastic RenLeg TOG Aenas light tanks, with
Neither has GMS's at all -- all Direct Fire weapons. I was toying with
making one a HEL and the other a DFFG, but I'd prefer to run all MDC. I'm
tempted to just explain it as a Turret upgrade on some that has some advantage
on a level to fine grain to simulate in the game (and is thus rendered nothing
but flavor).
> (one is a MICV, one is a scout vehicle with more teeth for dealing
They're all my APC's -- more battle taxi than MICV (a PDS, a class 1
direct fire weapon, and a PA element), and too big for my scout vehicles.