Prev: Re: [SG] Withdrawl from close combat Next: Re: Elevation/Depression of AFV main arms

RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor

From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@d...>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:27:53 -0500
Subject: RE: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor

Comments marked by [Bri]
Brian Bell	     

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrix []
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:29 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: [ds2] Dirtside powered armor
> An attempt to clear up some confusion regarding SG and DS.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> >Class-2 weapons? Are you referring to a class-2 as defined in SG?
> The weapon and vehicle size classes are the same in DS and SG.
[Bri] Agreed. The question was not from me but rather from Brian
Having 2 Brian B's on the list can be confusing.

> Size 1 weapons can be man-portable in SG (PA or otherwise), the troops
> move a
> little slower, and it takes a little time (1/2 activation) to set up
> tear
> down.
> Some weapons carried by PAs, like the NAC HVAT Railgun and the ESU
> Assault cannon (RFAC/1, sic!), are very similar to size 1 weapons, but
> lack
> their range.
> A "true" size 1 weapon has a range band of 12" x the size of the
> while
> these PA-carried  weapons would have a range band of (usually) 10" or
> 12".
> (A "range band" is, in SG, the increment by which shooting gets more
> difficult, i.e. up to one range band - close, and so on, up to the
> range
> band, which is the longest range for effective fire on targets in the
> open.)
> Thus, the maximum effective range for an elite PA trooper firing a
> Railgun any target would be (5x12"=) 60 SG inches, which translates to
> 6" in
> DS. Not _quite_ the same as a MDC/1!
> (A MDC/1 in SG, firing at a size 3 target, would have a maximum
> effective
> range of (5x12"x3=) 180", or 18" in DS.)
[Bri] True, but the same weapon firing at a size 1 target would only
a maximum effective range of (5x12"x1=) 60" SG or 6" DS2. EXACTLY
the same as the PA-carried weapon. Granted, if the target is larger, 
then vehicle weapons gain an advantage.
The breakdown in the system is that SG2 has 2 different mechanics for 
firing weapons. One for Infantry and one for vehicles. 
I wish that the ranges were left as stated in DS2. A MDC-1 should be
able to target infantry at a SG range of 160" (DS 16"). Bad news for 
anyone caught by it, but then again it SHOULD be bad news. Now,
if that were broken down into 5 range bands, it should be 32" to the
range band for MDC-1. Against non-infantry targets, it would have a
SG range of 240" (DS 24"), and range bands would be at 48".
In the Grey Day scenario, I was TROUBLED to see a tank with a 
HKP-5 or MDC-5 (can't remember) not be able to target a vehicle that
would have been at short range in DS2 (30" or 36" [300" or 360" SG 

> I would probably classify these weapons as APSWs, but counting them as
> for damaging vehicles, possibly counting damage as if the target has
> reactive armour or APFCs, and maybe increase the range to, say, 6" for
> PA
> infantry.
> By the way, in SG you have a GMS/P, which is even smaller than the
> GMS/L. The GMS/L is treated just like any other size 1 weapon.
[Bri] I have also thought about this. I think that a house rule could be
made that is fairly generic for all weapons that are man-portable 
versions of heavy weapons (call it /p class):
HEL/P, RFAC/P, MDC/P (GAC/P), DFFG/P, and GSM/P all work as
per the rules for class-1 weapons with the following changes:
  1) Use infantry quality as FCS (green: basic, regular: enhanced,
veteran and elite: superior).
  2) Maximum range is 12" (DS2 inches).
Simple and easy to use. HVC, HKP, and SLAMs are not included as
the minimum size listed is Class-3.

> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> >I can't look in Stargrunt, I don't own it, I only own DS II
> Oh, I think everybody should have a copy of SG, if not else for the
> beautiful
> rules mechanisms :-)
[Bri] Many of the rules are beautiful. However, I object to the game
divergence between DS2 and SG2. One would think that two SF
ground combat games from the same company would fit the mechanics
in such a way that given 2 identical situations in both games that
the results would be similar. This, unfortunately, is not the case with
DS2 and SG2. 
I originally purchased FT. Then MT. Then DS2. While
on the list, I kept reading posts that used the same terminology as
the DS2 game, but the mechanics and results seemed skewed.
Eventually I purchased a copy of SG2 just to be able to look up the
references from the Mailing List posts. I expected some differences,
since the scales of the games are different. What I was not expecting
is that tactics used on one game, if used in the other game, bring
about VASTLY different results.
When the long awaited 'Bugs Don't Surf' comes out,
I hope that there will be a section that brings the two systems closer
together (in results if not mechanics).

> --
> Henrix,
> who has, sadly, only played DS three times...

Prev: Re: [SG] Withdrawl from close combat Next: Re: Elevation/Depression of AFV main arms