Re: Dirtside II eval (fwd)

Chen-Song Qin wrote:

> Since there's so much discussion about DSII recently, I'd like to
share
> something I ran into a couple of days ago. Someone (a former US Army
> artillery officer) from anothing mailing list had amassed a list of
> complaints about Dirtside II from a while ago. (when he played it)
> I'd like to hear some discussion from you guys about these problems 
> (some of them might not be "problems" per se since they are
complaints > that DSII doesn't follow the modern pattern), and maybe
inspire :) some > house rules ideas.

I think that most of these complaints are caused by attempts to fit
DSII to the weapons in use today (ie, the weapons that were designed
10-20 years ago). The points they make about hit/kill probabilities,
ranges etc all fit those weapons.

However, DSII fits the weapons being designed today (and thus may come
into use in 5-10 years) pretty well. Some of those weapons - the Strix
mortar grenade, for example - are already deployed but have never been
used in combat. Of course, this means that DSII is probably as good a
simulation of 23rd century ground combat as Napoleonic rules are for
simulating modern fighting <g>

> Attached is a Word version, which (hopefully) isn't too big for the
list.

Put it like this: 24 kB of small, empty squares are *MUCH; MUCH; MUCH*
too big. Especially if the text file says the same thing...

> Dirtside II rules eval
> 
> System weak points
> 1)	Direct fire
>	A)	Damage vs armor values does not scale: Nonlinear

In reality,  you mean? Of course. Weapon mass vs armour penetration
doesn't scale either, but the relationships are way too complex for me
to want them as game mechanics <shrug>

>			Mean damage per draw is in excess of 1.5

If you count all colours and assign numerical values to the special
chits, yes. The mean numerical damage per draw is 1.33, split as 0.66
Red, 0.33 Green, 0.33 Yellow. Since very few weapons count all colours
I don't see this as a problem.

>	B)    Infantry too hard to kill? It is almost impossible to kill
power 
>		armor without DFFGs or SLAM

Or APSWs, close assaults etc. KE rounds aren't very good at killing
dispersed infantry even now, but I suspect that even HKP- or HVC-armed
tanks would carry some sort of small-calibre frag rounds as well as
their rod penetrators for use against infantry.

>	C)    ATGMs too good vs armor. For example, the GMS/H is a class
>      5
warhead  (mean	damage	is  7.5pts) and is almost unsurvivable.

ATGMs which hit *should* have a high kill probability, at least until
tank designers start putting 3' armoured roofs on their designs (but by
then we've improved our warheads further still :-/ ). 

The important word here is "which hit" - in DSII, as well as on
tomorrow's tank battlefield if today's development trends hold firm,
you fight ATGMs primarily with ECM and point defence rather than with
armour.

> 2)	  Artillery
>	  A)	Effectiveness is vastly raised by silly system
>		     Rounds should probably land after movement is
>		completed
>		     Predicted fire by grid on the map sheet?

Don't think so. Trajectory-corrected munitions coupled with good
positioning equipment for the Fire Observers means that you'll have a
pretty good chance of putting your rounds - your *first* rounds - where
you want them, and the rounds should be in the air within a minute or
two after the call arrives. 'Course, it'll take a couple extra minutes
for the rounds to cover the 40+ km from a heavy artillery battery to
the target zone, but that's covered by the single activation allowed to
the enemy IMO.

>	  B)	Kills armor too easily
>		     Armored vehicles should be very hard to kill with
>		 arty Mean modern damage is 14 rounds per AIFV	(Bn 6 -
>		8*3*6)

While I'm not allowed to quote solid figures, I can safely say that
target-seeking munitions like the Strix need far less than 14 rounds to
kill an AFV (including tanks) - unless of course the vehicle is
protected by ECM/camouflage or point defence. DSII allows neither to
stop incoming arty, but it should IMO.

>	C)    Excessively ineffective on infantry	
>		     Infantry is the primary target for artillery
>		     A battery 1 on moving Non-powered) infantry should
>		  result in really high casualties.

Militia in the open takes ~26% losses when hit by open-sheaf light
artillery. That's only high casualties, not really high :-/ The moral
here is, of course: "Fire closed sheafs for effect" <g>

>	  D)	Range Problems: Light artillery of the type that is
> described would typically have a range of maybe 6-9km.

In 10 years, this range will have improved by at least 50%. I strongly
suspect that it'll improve further still over the next two centuries
:-/

>	  E)	Counter Battery: CBR data goes into main data system,
> usable by anyone, not  just one fire unit.

Agreed. If you want to use a central database rather than a CBR
attached to the vehicle you'd need an extra communications roll,
though, and the CBR vehicle itself should always be vulnerable to enemy
action (much like an ADS vehicle). (This is the main reason why you
*don't* want the CBR anywhere close to your batteries!)

> 3)	  Command and control
>	  A)	Morale effects ineffective and pointless: Scale to
> company?
>	  B)	Morale effects are limited to one platoon
>	  C)	Typically it is destroyed before it suffers from
adverse
> effects.
>	  D)	In reality, loss of a single platoon will normally stop
an
> attacking company.

Morale is pretty much pointless for vehicles, but not for infantry IME.
Or, rather, infantry is much more affected by low morale than vehicles
but usually takes longer to die :-/

There should be a way to scale morale effects up to the company level
at least (and maybe to the battalion/task force level as well) - with
the good communications in use in DSII everyone in the force will hear
private Jones screaming when his guts are ripped out by shrapnel, not
just his closest buddies...

> 4) ADA
>	  A)	MANPAD systems range is shorter than current modern
stuff
> by lots. Effective range should be 3km or LOS
>	  B)	Mobile ADA systems have a lot of range, greater than
the
> 3.6km.  8km would be more reasonable

Yes and yes. So should the ordnance used by aircraft, however - and the
supply of AA missiles should be limited, preferrably handled like
artillery munitions (ie, when they're fired, they're gone).

> 5)	  The objective markers being placed by the defender makes no
> sense.
>	  A)	The objective is not determined by the defender, but by
> the attacker
>	  B)	The defender may guess what the attackers objective is,
> but won't know.

If this refers to the Attack/Defence scenarios only, I'd modify this to
"The objective markers all being placed by the defender makes no
sense."; instead I'd use the standard objective placement. The attacker
doesn't know exactly what ground is important to the defender either.

There are many examples of badly-planned attacks where the
pre-determined objectives have been gained, but where it turned out
that the objectives were worthless in the long run (and usually rather
costly in the short). Should such a hollow "victory" count as a victory
at all? It would, if the attacker places all objectives.

>	  C)	The attackers objective may or may not be related to
> scenario victory.

Scenario victory conditions are handled in any fashion the scenario
designer likes, which makes this objection irrelevant IMO.

> Relatively minor stuff.
> 
> 6)	Opportunity Fire rules do not allow overwatch
> 7)	Unit integrity rules are too rigid.  See 6.

If he means to use one fire team or vehicle on overwatch while the rest
of the platoon advances, I agree. If he means something else, I don't
understand what it is.

> 8)	You cannot effectively clear mines with arty.  It just doesn't
work.

<g> Now where's John when we need him? <g>

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry