RE: DS2 Questions

>GMS are *already* affected by ECM, and Superior ECM is much, *much*,
>*MUCH* more common among the DSII designs I've seen (both IRL and on
>the web) than level-3 Stealth is. Level-3 Stealth degrades direct fire
>against Size-4+ targets (you can't get a smaller signature than 1) by
>very nearly the same factor as Superior ECM degrades GMS fire against
>any target.
>
>Since Superior ECM is common and Level-3 Stealth isn't and they both
>have the same effects against their respective "target" weapons, you
>seem to be saying that infantry is dog food in the *current* rules
>since they don't have any long-ranged anti-tank weaponry... or?

On a size 4 tank superior ECM reduces the chance of being hit by between
22.5% and 30%. Level 3 stealth reduces the chance of being hit by
between 12.5% and 25%. So not only is it less effective it is also
more than FIVE times more expensive.

A tank can also obtain poor mans stealth. ie. Hide in a forest/buildings
Evasive driving, digging a hole and hiding in it. All of which are
pretty
cheap. (except for digging the hole)

But the only poor mans ecm is an ADS vehicle, a PDS or popping smoke.
The ADS is very expensive and variable compared to how many people want
you dead. A PDS is very very expensive since it takes not only points
but
space as well. And smoke only protects from frontal fire. 

>First, combining Stealth and ECM into one system (with 4 or 5 levels,
>including "None" and maybe "Brilliant") *reduces* the number of
>combinations compared to the current situation. In the published rules
>ECM has 4 levels and Stealth has as many levels as the vehicle's class,
>and these can be combined any way you like - eg., for a Size-5 vehicle
>there are 20 possible combinations of ECM and Stealth. Last time I
>checked 4 and 5 were both somewhat smaller than 20 ;-)

You are forgetting Size in your calculations. IF a GMS system is
defended
against by "defence"(size modified by a combined stealth/ECM) + PDS and
a direct fire weapon is defended against by "defence" + "mobility" or
"terrain". And ECM IS NOT an integral part of the chassis. Then there
are 30 levels to balance. (Since each size will have a different
multiplicative cost due to greatly differing returns)

If on the other hand ECM IS an integral part of the chassis. You have
your
original 4 or 5 level, but you end up with the a design system that
starts
growing Gouda from its chin. Since a Jeep is now inherently
as stealthy as a F111. Give that jeep a GMS/H with a decent fire control
and you need never use a main battle tank again. Or on the other hand
you
get a lo-tech army that finds it cheaper to build MBT's than Jeeps.
(Just
imagine what traffic cops would have to put up with in that country)

>>>But certain
>>>weapons counteract its short-commings. Gary (my opponent) uses
>>>GMS/H and HEL's all of which have a long range without any
>>>range detremental brackets. Basically long range stuff.
>
>Interesting. Given his relatively low mobility, is he able to hold the
>range open for long enough?

We play on a 6 by 4 table starting on the short sides. So he tends to
get a reasonable few licks in before i get close. Mainly by oppurtunity
fire.
His main problem is not the shooting nitty-gritty stuff, but the fact
that
his tactical options are so limited. He has to spread out enough so that
arty don't get the whole force but still keep close enough that he
doesn't
get picked off bit by bit. (Air-dropped mines totally scupper him)

Graeme