Re: DSII questions

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >In my background, DSII Stealth is advanced manufacturing, fitting
more
stuff in less space. It seems to fit better that way.
>
> So with a design system which handles the "more stuff in less space"
explicitly your background would have no place for Stealth?

Kind of. If "more stuff in less space" is handled explicitly, and a
better
option for stealth is presented, that would be nicer.

For Stealth, my opinion is that it should work against main weapon FC,
_and_
GMS. Not like it is currently, only working against FC. Stealth should
be
something like an extra defensive dice, like ECM and PDS.

> >In my background, ECM is a combination of chaff, flares, smoke, laser
blinders, radar jammers, holographic imagers, directed EMP and similar
systems directed by an automatic computer system. All these designed to
confuse and deflect an incoming missile into not impacting with the
target
vehicle.
>
> Hm. What's the difference between this and PDS? That is, what is the
big
conceptual difference between having a system with a sensor which
detects
incoming missiles and a grenade launcher firing a smoke grenade into the
missile's path or a small laser which blinds the missile's optics on one
hand, and having a system with a sensor which detects incoming missiles
and
a fragmentation charge which throws shrapnel into the missile's path or
a
small gun which puts a bullet through the missile's optics on the other?

In my background, I have ECM as being more area effect than directional
as
PDS. The ECM emissions are all over the place and produce a bigger
target
for the GMS. PDS directly destroys the incoming GMS (and maybe IAVRs
too) or
tries to. APFCs are there to hinder enemy infantry, and so cause them
not
launch IAVRs accurately. I would have Active armour as another armour
option
to degrade the effectiveness of the GMS/IAVR warhead, after it hits.
    So "grenade launcher firing a smoke grenade into the missile's path"
this is like PDS in only firing one grenade. A good GMS design would
ignore
the smoke grenade as it's only a sudden obscurement, and there's various
other emissions the GMS could home in on. A ECM variant of this would
spit
several grenades out, much like a rapid smoke screen use.
    Basically, ECM and PDS could be treated the same. I have PDS as
directly
destroying the GMS, while ECM diverts the GMS to more "attractive"
targets.
    For Laser designated and wire guided GMS in my rules, I have these
ignoring ECM as the human controller isn't fooled by the ECM. But PDS
still
works just as well.
    One could conceivably have armoured GMS, this would degrade or
ignore
PDS, but ECM would still work.

>>>What is the big difference between the guidance systems of a GMS and
the
sensors of an AFV or a sensor drone which makes the systems able to fool
the
AFV or drone unable to fool the missile and vice versa?

> >In my background, I think I solve this problem.

> That's nice. Would you like to tell us *how*? <g>

I'll try! :-)

> After all, smoke, radar jammers and holographics (all ECM) would most
likely have a certain detrimental effect on AFV targeting systems as
well as
on missiles; similarly a low profile (stealth) would make the vehicle
harder
for the missile crews to detect and engage.

I'm thinking of things like flares being ejected from planes in combat.
From
the missile's perspective of hunting down warm engines and the hole in
the
background UV/IR, these flares are intended to be more attractive to the
missile's _limited_ point of view.
    The GMS hasn't got access to the battlefield overview that all
soldiers
and vehicles have. The combination of defences like flares, limited
smoke
deployment, holographic imagers and radar jammers all work best near the
target vehicle. But these emissions can be tracked and used to help with
Fire control solutions, particularly when coupled with the battlefield
overview that's available.

> (BTW, isn't smoke its own system in DSII rather than part of the ECM?)

That's right. But the DSII smoke takes the place of a firing action. I
interpret this to mean that it's quite thick and dense and long lasting.

> >I assume that artillery MAK just overwhelms defensive system with
numbers. So ECM, PDS and Stealth have no effect versus Artillery.
>
> IMO that's a very weak assumption, and that's in spite of my being
biased
in favour of the artillery... Even with cluster munitions you'd need
WW1-style massed artillery batteries to throw enough dumb rounds into an
area; for MAK to have the effects it has in the game, each sublet needs
to
be able to aim itself at a target - and the sensors of a sublet is
nowhere
near as powerful as those of a GMS, let alone an AFV, so anything which
can
fool those systems will degrade the sublets quite measurably.

It does seem weak. Here's my excuse! :-) I figure that the artillery
vehicles have access to the battlefield overview, and the MAK shells get
updated targeting information as they're fired down the barrel. So they
know
where the vehicle/s were just a few seconds ago and which direction and
speed they were going in. So they know that the vehicle must be where it
is,
and so no attractive alternative is acceptable, so ECM fails, there's
enough
of them coming in so that the PDS overloads after shooting down 4 or 5,
and
APFC detects no enemy infantry, so it doesn't go off.

> >In my opinion, about 10% roughly. So the wheeled force might need >10
more vehicles than the GEV force.
>
> OK. Any opinions about other mobility combinations? :-)

Hmmm, I think that walker 'mech mobility and the stealth penalty is too
high. That'll make the B'Tech people happier.

> Thanks for the input,

Glad to help! Feel free to trash my ideas, so I can make better ones!
:-)

Andrew Martin
Furiously wishywashy...
ICQ: 26227169
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
-><-