Re: DSII for the 2020s

At 10:21 PM 12/2/99 GMT, you wrote:
>In message <199912022140.WAA15314@d1o29.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson"
writes:
>> David Brewer wrote:

<< snip >>

>> HE (ie,
>> anti-personnel frag charges) etc. Restricting them to rocket-assisted
>> HEAT only seems a bit too restrictive to me :-/
>
>I didn't think of them as HVC-like guns (I no longer have a copy
>of DS1 for reference) but as low-pressure guns, like the Russian
>73mm or 100mm guns used on the BMP-1 and -3 respectively... eg.
>not a weapon capable of throwing KE penetrators about. I don't
>recall if the fluff text specifically said HEAT. It really isn't
>very relevant whether the shell was HEAT, HESH or some sort of
>explosively forged or propelled penetrator. In game terms the
>penetration did not vary on range, while the penetration for MDC's
>did.
>
>The general lack of anti-personnel ammo is just one of those DS
>things, I 'spose. Whether a tank-scale railgun is likely to be
>able to throw a large-calibre HE-frag-type bomb is something I,
>as yet, don't know.
>

::blink::
Huh, a while ago I posted (what I thought was) a new weapons system for
DSII, but got no response. Here it is again:

=========================
I've been mulling over my Free State background lately, working up some
TOE's and designing vehicles, and it seems that there is something of a
gap
in the weapons provided in the rules. They all seem to be optimized for
putting holes in thick chunks of metal. While this may be all well and
good
for those Great Powers that have the industrial and financial
wherewithall
to build, deploy, and replace the heavy metal, those of us out on the
frontiers don't have those luxuries, or those kinds of enemies. We spend
most of our time trying to deal with the scads of infantry running
around
with the Twenty Second century versions of AK-47's and RPG's. Hence the
following weapon:

Low Velocity Cannons (LVC):
  The LVC operates on the same principles as the HVC, however, the LVC
is
optimized for firing chemical energy warheads at moderate velocities.
The
emphasis on a good Anti-Personel capability, with secondary Anti-Armour
performance. A useful twentieth century comparision would be the 76 to
90
mm low pressure cannon, or the 81 mm gun-mortars primarily found in
Third
World militaries.  
  The LVC comes only in size classes 3 and 4. 

Range Table:	 Close Range	  Medium Range	    Long Range
LVC/3			  12 "			   20"
28"
LVC/4			  14"			   23"
32"

Damage
LVC:	    Against Reactive Armour: Yellow Chits
		 Against all other armours:  Red Chits
		 Against Infantry:	       :  Red Chits

Costs: 6 x Size of weapon. 

Rationale: As a lower velocity version of the HVC, the LVC would seem to
have less inherent accuracy and range, so I knocked 4 inches off the
equivelent sized HVC range. Since the antiarmour effect comes from a
chemical warhead like those on the GMS systems, but since the warhead is
lighter than on those systems, I reduced the effects. Since the whole
point
of the weapon was to have an effective anit- infantry effect, I gave it
the
best AP capability I could find on the DF weapons chart. This was the
DFFG,
and I can justify this by saying the LVC has a special AP shell that
only a
low velocity weapon can fire (sensitive fuzing, greater HE load,
whatever).
I'm not real sure about the points, just looking at it it seems less
useful
than a standard HVC, but somewhat more than RFAC's. I gave it 6 x the
size,
but I'm open to discussion.

Any thoughts?

Don
=================

Is this similar to what you're thinking of? And are there any thoughts
*this* time? :-)

Don