Well,
FWIW, my approach to KV vehicle design has followed the following basic
theories: 1) Powerful railgun probably use gravitic technology 2) KV railguns
on ships could be put on armoured vehicles with scaled down versions 3) A
railgun is roughly equivalent to a souped up MDC 4) KV vehicles <IMO> should
utilize grav technology because it is swift and
silent and fits with the predatory modus operandi - great raiding
vehicles
I use Eldar tanks as my KV vehicles - Armourcast Eldar Tempests and some
Epicast stuff too. They look graceful and lethal. They are large (just goes
with the figure), pack heavy firepower, decent ECM, some stealth (again with
the hunter motif) and are assumed to be using Fusion Power and Grav
Propulsion. Armour is heavy enough to be terrifying (like KV armour!) and
effective against similar sized RGs (other KV!). My "KV advanced tech" railgun
for my class 5 MBT is a class 5 railgun sized as a class 4. That gives them a
size advantage. <Haven't translated these to DS2 yet>.
That's my take - they want quiet, stealthy, vehicles with enough defense
(PDS/ECM) to withstand some attacks and enough armour to take a hit or
two. They probably don't use reactive armour. They'll want something that runs
on fusion to power the big railguns they use. And grav mobility lets them
cross most terrain.
I haven't really thought about SV vehicles, but I'd be tempted to think
they'd be SST-esque bioforms like the Tanker Bug or various types of pod
creatures with nasty nasty organic weaponry.
Phalons? I can't even imagine what a Phalon looks like - their ships
alone are enough to make one hide and blush... their ground troops must be
moderately terrifying.
How about the 1/300th Sci-Fi worms Gladiator does. I think they're the
ones,
anyway they've got Giant Worms w/ Laser Howdas (sp), infantry, and
vehicles. That's my next order, or is it 15mm GZG NAC & ESU...
> Phalons? I can't even imagine what a Phalon looks like - their ships
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:53:32 -0400 , "Thomas.Barclay" writes:
and
> effective against similar sized RGs (other KV!). My "KV advanced tech"
That
> gives them a size advantage. <Haven't translated these to DS2 yet>.
Hmmmm. A post-FB2 idea. Since FB2 K'V use strong hulls and not that
much armor now, how about this for their DS2 tanks.
(I don't have my rules in front of me, so I'm talking off the cuff here). How
about giving the K'V tanks an additional damaged level? If they take damage
that would destroy a regular tank, give them a
damage marker that reduces their movement by 25-33%, and their main
weapon by one class. A second damage marker would destroy them. Adds record
keeping (or more counters. Blah) But better simulates the way their space
ships work.
> (I don't have my rules in front of me, so I'm talking off the cuff
Not after FB3. KV armour is not that common - none of the ships in FB3
have
it...
:D
If you're giving their weaponry class 5 strength at size 4, you'd better be
tweaking the point system when you get to DSII, otherwise things are going to
be VERY unbalanced. That was one of the gripes that led me to leave the
Fold of the Faithful when it came to Battletech - they never really came
up with a really logical fair way to balance the Inner Sphere vs. the Clan
technology disparity. I don't mind being outgunned by the aliens, but if I
found myself ready to play a game and discovered that not only did the KV
player get to use nastier weaponry than mine, but he paid the same or less to
build it, I'd be screaming bloody murder. There's nothing fun about playing
lopsided massacres.
I'm not sure this would really work in DS II. Remember, in DS II there's no
such thing as "Hull" as opposed to armor. There's a size class, and there's
armor. Basically, all you're doing is making KV Armor 1 level stronger
- ie
class 4 armor would act as class 5, etc. I'm guessing (and only guessing
since I don't play FT) that if the KV don't rely on armor, they must rely on
some sort of shielding on their ships.
Now, "Lot's of hull, not a lot of armor" translates in DS II to underarmored.
So I'm going to assume 1 of 3 things: Either: 1) the KV have developed some
sort of shields for their ground vehicles using a technology unknown to humans
or 2) The KV have a different design philosophy for ground vehicles than for
spacecraft or 3) KV tanks may be killing machines but they're also quite
killable, IF you can hit them.... Let's look at our options:
Option 1: Shields: We'll just have to wait and see how those will change the
face of ground warfare in the Tuffleyverse.
Option 2: The KV ground commanders rely a lot more heavily on armor than do
the naval CO's. This would explain highly armored KV tanks.
Option 3: I'm wrong on both counts. The KV DON'T rely on heavy armor, and
DON'T have ground-based shield devices. Instead, the KV philosophy would
be (comparatively) lightly armored vehicles with superior ECM and GOBS of
stealth. They're a B***h to hit, but if you do, you have a good chance of
killing them.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: Matthew Seidl <seidl@vex.cs.colorado.edu>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 16:12:26 -0600
Hmmmm. A post-FB2 idea. Since FB2 K'V use strong hulls and not that
much armor now, how about this for their DS2 tanks.
(I don't have my rules in front of me, so I'm talking off the cuff here). How
about giving the K'V tanks an additional damaged level? If they take damage
that would destroy a regular tank, give them a
damage marker that reduces their movement by 25-33%, and their main
weapon by one class. A second damage marker would destroy them. Adds record
keeping (or more counters. Blah) But better simulates the way their space
ships work.
-=- Matthew L. Seidl email: seidl@cs.colorado.edu
=-=
=-= Graduate Student Project . . . What Project?
-=-
-=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html -Morrow Quotes
=-=
=-= http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit
-=-
Just as an aside: I thought one useful aspect of "Phantom Menace" was the
depiction of shields in ground combat. They have quite a profound effect. In
StarWars you need fighters to penetrate the shields, bodily, and do damage
on the other side, in Phantom Menace you need disposable close-combat
troops
for the same reason. Storm-troopers make sense; they aren't just generic
bad-guys. Looks like there is some technological consistency and decent
military thinking behind there somewhere. Perhaps better than "Let's put
torpedoes in, they're cool!..."
I would expect that the Armorcast and Epicast Tyranid bio-constructs
from GW's WH40K would make good Sa'vasku bioconstructs in the interim (and
neatly available in 6mm and something close to 25mm).
I would also think the Kryomek vehicles (from the game of the same name) might
make passable small Phalon vehicles. They're clearly organic technology, but
shaped like human constructs and implying a crew (while the Tyranids don't
look like they'd hold crew).
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Option 3: I'm wrong on both counts. The KV DON'T rely on heavy
I LIKE option 3, sort of feels right to me. Seems to fit the hunter mentality
nicely.
Fast grav, Big guns, light armour, a couple of levels of stealth (at least)
and you have a very nice package.
---
I will comment more on this later as time allows. For now, let me say this: If
this design philosphy becomes canon, you can bet that human artillerymen are
going to enjoy a significant rise in their popularity amongst the rest of the
service....
Brian B(attery C, Fire For Effect!)
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Steve Gill" <Steve@caws.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:02:37 +0100
I LIKE option 3, sort of feels right to me. Seems to fit the hunter mentality
nicely.
Fast grav, Big guns, light armour, a couple of levels of stealth (at least)
and you have a very nice package.
---
Steve Gill
Aron_Clark@digidesign.com wrote in reply to someone (Thomas Barclay?):
> Phalons? I can't even imagine what a Phalon looks like
The Phalons themselves, or their vehicles?
There are pics of Phalon 25mm gropos in the 1999 GZG catalogue.
> How about the 1/300th Sci-Fi worms Gladiator does.
The vehicles and gigant worms are very nice, but not nearly obscene enough to
use as Phalons <g> The infantry isn't very interesting though, and definitely
nothing like Phalon infantry.
Regards,
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I will comment more on this later as time allows. For now, let me say
If they manage to hit their target, sure. The problem is that the target
usually won't be where the grenades fall (in real life due to the tanks moving
at very high speeds, in DSII due to the tanks getting a warning "ranging shot"
before the real salvo arrives unless the artillery are firing over open
sights).
Furthermore, in real life both stealth/ECM and point defence works
against guided or self-guiding AT artillery munitions - only so-so at
the moment, but it won't take long before they work far too well for my taste.
They should in DSII as well, though at the moment they don't.
Regards,
Actually, in DSII, if I read the rules right, the answer is simple -
wait until the unit you want to hit has used it's activation, then call in the
artillery. That way they DON'T have time to react. I'm not sure hoe to
justify that IRL, but in game terms, it's not only allowed, it's suggested
right in the rulebook. As for PDS/ADS vs. arty, I suppose that would
depend on what type of munition is being fired and how it's being guided in...
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:37:11 +0200
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I will comment more on this later as time allows. For now, let me say
If they manage to hit their target, sure. The problem is that the target
usually won't be where the grenades fall (in real life due to the tanks moving
at very high speeds, in DSII due to the tanks getting a warning "ranging shot"
before the real salvo arrives unless the artillery are firing over open
sights).
Furthermore, in real life both stealth/ECM and point defence works
against guided or self-guiding AT artillery munitions - only so-so at
the moment, but it won't take long before they work far too well for my taste.
They should in DSII as well, though at the moment they don't.
Regards,
> I'm not sure this would really work in DS II. Remember, in DS II
No, just lots of hull integrity. Since they use penetrator weapons themselves,
this is primarily what they build to defend against, so they make their hulls
INTERNALLY strong (lots of bulkheads etc) to limit the
damage that penetrators do rather than armour-up the outside. They work
on
the basis that you can't put enough armour on to stop the big k-guns
from penetrating, so you have to protect the critical areas within the hull
instead by surrounding them with lots of non-critical areas to soak up
the
damage....
Jon (GZG)
> Now, "Lot's of hull, not a lot of armor" translates in DS II to
-=-
> -=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html -Morrow Quotes
But they DO, I've been told, have hull. And since there's no hull in DSII,
just substitute armor for it....
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Denny Graver" <den_den_den@talk21.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 23:42:45 +0100
Not after FB3. KV armour is not that common - none of the ships in FB3
have
it...
:D
There's also a game out called Rebellion, I've never played it, but it also
looks to incorporate organic looking armor units.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@sofkin.ca>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:02:23 -0400
I would expect that the Armorcast and Epicast Tyranid bio-constructs
from GW's WH40K would make good Sa'vasku bioconstructs in the interim (and
neatly available in 6mm and something close to 25mm).
I would also think the Kryomek vehicles (from the game of the same name) might
make passable small Phalon vehicles. They're clearly organic technology, but
shaped like human constructs and implying a crew (while the Tyranids don't
look like they'd hold crew).
I see. Very interesting, thanks for the input Jon. I've never played FT, but
I'm guessing all that hull is factored into the design process? My biggest
suggestion is that since there's no distinction between hull and
armor in DS II, you just allow the KV to build more heavily armored vehicles,
to reflect the robustness of fram as well as the protection slapped on it.
This is a move away from the proposal I put forth in the
E-mail you replied to.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:50:42 +0100
No, just lots of hull integrity. Since they use penetrator weapons themselves,
this is primarily what they build to defend against, so they make their hulls
INTERNALLY strong (lots of bulkheads etc) to limit the
damage that penetrators do rather than armour-up the outside. They work
on
the basis that you can't put enough armour on to stop the big k-guns
from penetrating, so you have to protect the critical areas within the hull
instead by surrounding them with lots of non-critical areas to soak up
the
damage....
Jon (GZG)