On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
I assume this would require F.O. skills as currently? Are F.O. skills os
rare? I thought US/UK/ etc. trained troops in the general idea of
Artillery support. The 11Bravos (basic Infantryman) in our category 15 (of 15)
USAR unit certainly had the skill in their list of things to eventually learn.
Something us 76Yankees (Supply) didn't have. would this be a skill most
infantry FT's might acquire or would this be F. O. trained only?
> 2. Allow for elements other than the firing element to
Yea, Verily.
> 3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on all
Sure, although this slightly complicates angle of attack since you now have at
least three values (top being only relevant for top attacking systems.)
> 4. GMS that can top-attack, at some increased
Okay.
> 5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
Should this be everybody or should low tech/Basic PDS (whatever Low tech
means) be limited in this?
> 6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L, M,
Sure, then they could be costed like 'guns'.
> 7. Expanded CBR rules, including a modifier for the
How much 'expanded'?
> 8. Expanded C3 rules that allow for greater and/or
Depends on implementation.
> 9. Expanded AI rules
Where players could set level of AI, yes.
> 10. Mast-mounted Firecon for VTOLS to allow for
Their own weapons like GMS or others (relates to #2)?
> 11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+ walkers,
Well that could be done for all modes of movement.
> 12. Allow GMS to engage VTOL & Aerospace units
Sure, dual purpose (triple purpose for fast mover Aerospace units) should
be higher cost (or maybe require Basic/Enhanced/Superior GCS)?
> 13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
HEL's Yes, MDCs seems Logical, HKP maybe.... DFFG Maybe not?
> 14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any direct
Hmm, maybe.
> 15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD
Why not if we do this for GMS?
> 16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
Okay, might make more complicated direct fire but if done right...
> 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
Fer Sure.
> 18. Permit better Firecons to engage multiple targets
Yes.
> 19. Expand opportunity & Defensive fire rules
Agreed
> 20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons like
Interesting.
> 21. Allow arty to self-spot.
Do you mean via drones (which should be in some form of ADE/CADE
(counter ADE) factor like ADE in SG 2?) or something different?
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> >1. Semi-direct fire; ie., artillery-delivered
Unless the FO rules are modified too, yes.
> >3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
Actually, 6 values: front, rear, top, bottom, and sides.
> >5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
Obviously, the ability to do this will be affected by the quality of PDS.
> >6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L,
Well, not exactly like them, but it would definitely add flavor.
> >7. Expanded CBR rules, including a modifier for
That's a matter of great discussion. But as the rules
now, any off-board arty unit is equally exposed to CB
regardless of mobility type. How far you can scoot after you shoot, as well as
how stealthily you can shoot in the first place, should affect your exposure
to CBR.
> >8. Expanded C3 rules that allow for greater and/or
Some of it has been discussed on the list before, but I'd be happy to expound
later. If you're curious, let me know, and change the thread title.
> >9. Expanded AI rules
Absolutely.
> >10. Mast-mounted Firecon for VTOLS to allow for
Either/both.
> >11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
Currently, all other modes of movement are based on mobility type. For
walkers, it's based on function.
> >12. Allow GMS to engage VTOL & Aerospace units
Make them more expensive, for sure. Any construction
requirement is setting-specific.
> >13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
If a modern MBT main gun can do it, why not a DFFG?
> >14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any
No maybe, it should be done. If a ZAD is nothing but a gun with an advanced
turret and Firecon, then ANY gun should be available with that firecon. That
will make more powerful ZADS possible, but you can still limit it to certain
eapons for certain settings.
> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
This change would almost necessitate the further expansion of opportunity &
defensive fire.
> >20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons
I'd advocate the same change for other weapons, but what do you do with a
weapon whose Firecon is D4 at short range, or d12 at long range?
> >21. Allow arty to self-spot.
Something different -- Something along the lines of
bore-sighted direct artillery fire, or a non-firing
element of the unit to spot for the rest of the unit.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> >3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
<snip>
Six? Each side can be set at a different value? Why would you do that?
> >8. Expanded C3 rules that allow for greater and/or
Seems like we would go down the same path so I'll pass.
<snip>
> >11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
<snip>
Poorly stated on my part. Are we talking Fast/Slow like currently or
something like "pay per inch" costing? Or adding medium across the board to
include Walkers?
> >20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons
<snip> That would require GMS to be 'ranged' which, compared to rewriting
other
rules/adding complexity with new rules listed by some, seems a lot
less
of a change then others suggested/required by some.
Gracias,
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> >>>3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on all
In DS2 you already have to track the angle of attack since the sides, rear and
top are automatically 1 armour class lower than the front (DS2 p.10)
and the bottom is 2 classes lower than the front (DS2 p.44).
What Brian is talking about here is to dump the "*automatically* 1 armour
class lower" bit, in order to allow eg. armour schemes like those on today's
MBTs (cf. my comments about today's Abrams armour being something
like 8/3/1 for the front/side/rear armour in DS2 terms)... and also in
order to allow the players to experiment with other kinds of armour layouts,
eg. concentrating armour to the top in order to give better
protection against top-attack weapons.
> >Actually, 6 values: front, rear, top, bottom, and
Normally the left and right sides of the vehicle would have the same armour
rating, leaving you only five different values; but who knows what crazy
ideas players might want to try out? <g>
> >>>11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+ walkers,
"Pay per inch". (OK, "Pay per movement point", but you know what I mean
:-/ )
> B^3B wrote:
> >>>20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons >> like
Use an open die shift instead of the current semi-closed one. (DS2
"oversized" vehicles currently use something that looks kinda like an Open
shift but isn't.)
Later,
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Protection on the side that would be primarily facing the enemy, save cost on
armoring up all sides as much as possible. Oerjan did a study (maybe is still
doing a study in his copious spare time; I still have to type up and
give him some more data points :-( ) in the past couple of years about
what
sides were primarily targetted in DS2 games (front/side/rear mainly,
since
so relatively few bottom/top attacks happen). The idea of the study was
to
support a proposition to be able to re-armor vehicles to be more
reflective of reality, iirc (he gave the example of the Abrams tank, in DS2
terms it
should have armor 8/2/1 for front/sides/rear, iirc; if my sides/rear
numbers are off, they are off by only one or two, can't remember, but I think
8/2/1
is what he postulated).
In any event, in the DS2 games I ran and kept records for since then, I found
that well over 70% of the shots fired at targets were directed at the fronts
of targets, not the sides or rear (about 30% were aimed at the sides of
targets; less than 1% at target rears). Now, Oerjan was also collecting data
on weapon types, sizes, and ranges at the same time, so he
had larger fish to examine than just the front/side/rear aspect of it
all. The result of what I was recording for Oerjan was that I would like to
see an armor points system, where I can assign armor values as I see fit for
my vehicles, rather than the current DS2 rules that you set your armor value
for your front and drop it by one or two for sides, rear, top, bottom.
If anyone out there reading thinks my numbers are an aberration, and that
you think more shots are fired at sides/rear than what I was finding,
feel free to record which side units are firing against in your next set of
DS2
games and report them. :-) I would be interested in seeing if others
find significant differences or not.
Anyway, my two bits worth.
Mk
> Six? Each side can be set at a different value? Why would you do
May I suggest there are two discussions, though tightly related, going on? The
two sides could have the same armor values, but would represent separate
angles of attacks.
However, I can imagine situations, such as 'outriders', that may want one side
more heavily protected. During the discussion of asymmetrical ships in FT, I
came up with some fleet manuevers that depended on 'wing' ships having
broadsides on one side stronger than the other. One flaw was there was no way
to increase armor on one side over other directions, keeping cost down.
Note, these are less flexible ships, leaving the tactics more brittle, and
that would certainly be the case, if not more so, for any such designed armor.
The ships in question would have been a relatively small part of any
fleet, and, like Super Jackhammer Carrier Tank, fire magnets. ;->=
As manuever in DSII is less tightly controlled than in FTII, the discussion
becomes less significant, though.
The_Beast
> >3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
I think this might slow down the game for 3 reasons:
- You have to remember more stat (as opposed to 1 value that you add 1
or not depending if it's the front) or take the time to look it up on your
data sheet.
- Might create more argument about the angle of attack : Since you can
have, let say, front armor 8 and side 3, some degree (angle) will do a big
difference. Since not all people play with vehicule bases, determining
precisely which side get hit is problematic and will be lot more important
than it is now.
- Having bigger front armor value will make the vehicule harder to
destroy, thus making the game last longer.
Personnaly, I like the lenght of game that DS2 gives. The current armor rule
may not reflect reality but are good for the game itself.
> >6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L,
Good point. More variety (different range) for that particular weapon will be
good.
> >11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
Good. This make things simpler.
Fast legs/Slow legs mobility or something like that.
> >13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
I can see game reason to prevent some weapons to do that. It create more
diversity and gives the vehicule designer more choice (difficult choice I
should say) when creating his army. If you want a truly generic SF game, some
weapons should not be able to fire in the air (ground effect disruptor or
something like that).
> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
Might be good if properly done.
> > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
Not sure I like this one. If you combine this option and number 16 above, you
may have game turn that take much more times and more argument about which
weapons from which vehicule has been fired or not this turn.
I see the limit as a game balance thing. If you can put severe limitation to
avoid vehicule firing more than once per turn too often, it might work.
Finding the right balance might be more difficult (if your aim is to keep the
game length like it is).
> Yves Lefebvre wrote:
> 3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
Why not stick with the current idea (vehicle is designed with a single armour
value) but change the way that side and rear armour is derived to
reflect current design trends? Instead of side armour being (main
armour - 1), just say that vehicles with front armour 4 or 5 have side
armour of 2 and rear of 1, vehicles with front armour of 1-3 have side
and rear of 1. Less flexibility in design admittedly, but then DS2 is a
higher level game - it should be about grand tactics rather than
micro-managing the last cm of beryllium armour. I've only skimmed
through some of the posts on this (came back to 500 e-mails yesterday
morning) but it seems that most gamers would design their vehicles with high
front armour and much weaker sides and rear, so this probably won't
make much difference to most designs.
Just a thought
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> >Actually, 6 values: front, rear, top, bottom, and
*shrug* You got me, I can think of no logical reason to WANT to. But to be
truly generic, the game should permit you to if you so choose.
> Poorly stated on my part. Are we talking Fast/Slow
Pay per inch, and as you said, for all mobility types.
> <snip>
And completely changes the flavor of GMS, I'm against that.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> What Brian is talking about here is to dump the
Exactly.
> > >>>11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
Again, spot on.
> B^3B wrote:
I'd thought about that, the question becomes, what happens when the open shift
leaves one side greater than d12 AND the other side less than d4 AT THE SAME
TIME? Does that become an automatic result?
Doug's example below is interesting. Before anyone assails the validity of
allowing this type of strategy based on it's strategic foolishness, let me
point out that the point is that the player should be ABLE to create such a
force, whether for grins or for background flavor, regardless of the wisdom of
the strategy.
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> > Six? Each side can be set at a different value?
> --- Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com> wrote:
> I think this might slow down the game for 3 reasons
Wow, and looking down to see that "2" or "3" next to your tank's side will
take all of what, 5 seconds? I don't see this as being all that difficult.
> - Might create more argument about the angle of
So establish a clearer more definitive rule for determining angle of attack.
> - Having bigger front armor value will make the
I can't really think that's a serious concern. But if you really want to limit
armor to make games go faster, then establish limits to armor as part of the
design system you use. Remember, a lot of this is predicated upon making the
costing system independent of the construction rules, so that you can come up
with a myriad of different design parameters, but a uniform system for
determining the combat value of the vehicles. So if you don't WANT more
powerful armor, don't ALLOW it in your game.
> >> >13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High
> >If a modern MBT main gun can do it, why not a DFFG?
We're speaking specifically about the Direct Fire Weapons already in the game:
MDC, HKP, HVC, HEL, and DFFG. Of those 5, I can't see why any of them should
not be able to engage an air target as slow-moving as
a VTOL.
> >> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at
*snip*
> Might be good if properly done.
That's a big "IF", but worth the effort IMHO.
> > > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
That's a valid point, but it seems more like a reason to be cautious as to how
such a change would be implemented, not yet a reason to toss it out
altogether.
> I see the limit as a game balance thing. If you can
A few ideas might include penalties to accuracy for
secondary/tertiary or later targets, etc.
> --- Tony Francis <tony@brigademodels.co.uk> wrote:
> Why not stick with the current idea (vehicle is
Because, as you admit later, it limits the variety of designs possible.
Less flexibility in design
> admittedly, but then DS2 is a
Funny, I thought it was about providing a generic system for recreating
Science Fiction combat in any number of backgrounds. And as soon as you put
preconceived limits on rations of armor, or any system, you are going to start
shunning certain backgrounds that don't fit those preconceived (and
therefore NON-GENERIC) limitations.
I've
> only skimmed
It might not make much of a difference in MOST cases. That's not the point.
The point is, if the limit is left in place, you'll never know WHAT designs
people might have designed, because they'll be handcuffed to the limits of the
rule.
> Tony Francis wrote:
> Why not stick with the current idea (vehicle is designed with a single
Because the current MBT armour trend with massive frontal armour and weak
sides/rear is by no means universal; it is only *one* of several
different
real-world examples where the DS2 armour distributions are
inappropriate. Changing the DS2 rule to cover one of these examples means that
it still
won't cover any of the others.
Examples of existing armour distributions are:
- MBTs: Main (expected) threat is long-range tank gun fire, so *very*
heavy
frontal armour, much weaker sides/rear/top/bottom. DS2 can't handle
these; your (Tony's) suggestion can (since it is explicitly designed to handle
them).
- Vehicles designed specifically for FIBUA: Main threat is short-range
RPG fire which can come from just about any direction, so armour is heavy but
fairly evenly distributed. DS2's armour rules *can* handle at least some of
these reasonably well; Tony's can't.
- APCs, SPGs: Main threats are artillery, small arms and infantry
support weapons; again these can come from just about any direction. DS2's and
Tony's armour rules can cover *some* of these (ie. the ones which are only
small-arms proof in the sides and rear), but can't really cover those
which
are HMG-proof all around but don't have any significantly stronger front
armour (in DS2 terms armour/2 on front, sides and rear).
- Any vehicle designed with enhanced protection against mines: the
vehicle
*bottom* is reinforced, sometimes at the expense of the front/side/rear
armour. Neither DS2 nor Tony's rules can handle these unless you add special
rules.
- Any vehicle designed with an eye towards surviving top-attack weapons:
the vehicle *roof* is reinforced, sometimes at the expense of the
front/side/rear armour. Neither DS2 nor Tony's rules can handle these
unless you add special rules.
In other words, real-world armour distributions do not fit into one
single
rigid scheme - which means that any attempt to use a single rigid scheme
to describe them, like DS2 does, will fail for some of them. The more rigid,
the more vehicles it won't cover. If not even *today's* vehicles can fit
into one such rigid scheme, I'd be very surprised if all future vehicles in
all player-imagined futures would do it! (Binhan and KH have both given
good examples to the contrary already, too :-) )
Of course you could add special rules for "mine protection", "evenly
distributed armour" or "reinforced roofs" to DS2's or Tony's rules - but
then you lose the entire point of having a rigidly described armour scheme in
the first place, ie. making it easier to remember what armour the relevant
side of the vehicle has; it'd be simpler to allow the different
faces to be armoured independently from the start instead of allowing it
subsequently by means of a bunch of special rules :-/
Later,
> Indy wrote:
> Oerjan did a study (maybe is still doing a study in his copious spare
"Copious" being the key word here :-/
> The idea of the study was to support a proposition to be able to
More to serve as the basis for determining the points costs of
differently-armoured sides; but of course allowing differently-armoured
sides is an aspect of allowing DS2 to be more reflective of reality.
> In any event, in the DS2 games I ran and kept records for since then, I
> found that well over 70% of the shots fired at targets were directed at
> the fronts of targets, not the sides or rear (about 30% were aimed at
Beth Fulton and David Stuckey also kept similar records, and got very similar
results. Interestingly enough these values are also quite similar
to those from real-world studies made after WW2 and onwards, on which
the
design of today's real-world MBT armours are based... that's another
thing
DS2 gets right about combat in the 1980s ;-)
> Now, Oerjan was also collecting data on weapon types, sizes, and ranges
Very much so, yes.
> If anyone out there reading thinks my numbers are an aberration, and
So would I! Not only that; I'd be interesting in seeing data from other people
regardless of whether or not they resemble Indy's... so far I only have data
from four player groups (my own, Indy's, David Stuckey's and Beth Fulton's),
and although we're literally spread out all over the world it'd be nice to
have a larger sample <g>
If any of you want to join in, what I'd like to see recorded for each shot
fired (not just each *hit*, but each *shot*) is:
- Target signature
(- Target size and armour rating)
- Weapon type and class for the firing weapon
(- FCS type for the firing weapon)
- Range
- Face of target attacked
- Outcome (miss, hit but no effect, damage/mobility/systems, or
destroyed)
IOW, essentially the same data as I've been recording and collecting for
Full Thrust over the past five or six years, but for DS.
Later,
While I have not collected any actual data on this matter, and while it may
repeat some things previous said on the list, this last post got me to
thinkin' (can you smell the smoke from there?) so I figured I'd chime in.
Forgive me if this is just beating a dead horse.:)
So, statistics seem to confirm that most shots occur against frontal armor.
This does't suprise me at all. For shots to be taken against side and rear,
you have to be able to get into a position to target the sides
or rear (yes, painfully obvious, I know), and that is *hard* to do in a game
designed like DSII. In most cases, you have weapons capable of firing between
30 and 60 inches. Vehicles, however, can usually move around 12 inches per
turn. In the best case scenario, you need two move
periods (turns) to cross the range of a gun. To further complicate things,
each units activates once and is then done, allowing the next enemy unit to
activate and so on. Since all units are seen at all times
(unless you are using the rather primitive hidden units rules for an attack
against a defensive position, or house rules) it is nearly impossible to
"ambush" anything. There is no incentive to ever expose
your weaker side/rear armor (duh) and your opponent doesn't have enough
movement to outflank you. This is especially true since armored vehicles die
at relatively long ranges, and in my experience, rarely get close enough to
each other to do any kind of pass through moves.
The game plays very much like the modern 80s tank battles as O.O.
frequently points out. Front-heavy armor makes sense here because you
*can* keep the front armor facing the enemy - a U.S. tank commanders
best case scenario.
Granted "plunge fire guided missiles" that pop up and hammer the top armor
would change this somewhat, but only by changing the specific technology
used, not by changing tactics. Tactics being those things that you do to gain
advantageous position, not "what cool new toy" you're using.
Unless there is a change to the movement speeds and likely defensive fire
options, again, as previously suggested, this enforced tactical situation will
not change.
Among the things that I can think of to address this would be increase
movement rates to match something closer to "real life" rather than the "fast"
30kph tanks we see in DSII now. If the speeds are increased, however,
something has to be done to the activation system to allow better options for
opportunity fire. The thing that stops enemy movemnt is firepower. If you can
engage them and interrupt their movement, you can't effectively fight them.
Is this doable? Sure. But at least for now I also feel that we're just
making noise to ourselves. I know that Jon has more on his plate than he can
handle, and that DS3 is rather low on his priority list. Hopefully,
our various suggestions and rants will stay in the archives so that
when/if he decides to work on DS3 he won't have to ask us what we want.
:)
Ok, I'm done rambling for now.
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Indy wrote:
> time;
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Forgive me if this is just beating a dead horse. :)
We all do it.
> So, statistics seem to confirm that most shots occur
Exactly the conclusion that was reached on the Test List, IIRC.
> Among the things that I can think of to address this
Ideally, movement rates will be variable, the more points you pay, the faster
your tank. But yes, mobility does need to be addressed as well.
If the
> speeds are increased,
Agreed -- again, one of the suggestions I made. I
would suggest for starters that given the time scale of a game turn, any
element that is directly threatened should be able to return fire, even if it
has already fired during its own activation.
As for whether this will all be considered in DS 3 someday, all we can do for
now is keep the fires burning.