Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@q...>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:06:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
> >Is this USN?
>
> Yup, that was right off their website. I guess they've changed. When
> I first became a jarhead, they still had Commodore too.
>
> Schoon
Dirty Little Secrets (James Dunnigan, don't know the year offhand but
it's been a while) says that when the USN decided to drop Commodore in
favor of Rear Adm (Lower), a senator involved said "If 'commodore'
was good enough for Perry and John Paul Jones, it's good enough for
soome guys I never heard of!" He was, evidently, not listened to.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA25503;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:27:47 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC3Pm934057;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:25:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 19:25:47 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC3Pjg34032
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:nrDbOD7oj2R6t4hPCRG9zYLXqSjhcE+m@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC3PiP34027
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:25:44
-0800 (PST)
Received: from strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (strait.hba.marine.csiro.au
[140.79.17.2])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC3Pff96239
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:25:42 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au)
Received: from fulton.hba.marine.csiro.au (fulton [140.79.21.56])
by strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
eBC3P8117315
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:25:08 +1100
(EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001212142258.00a29760@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
X-Sender: fulton@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:25:34 +1100
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
Subject: [DS/FT] CAV
In-Reply-To: <NEBBIIBFOLOGOPNJADCAEEFLCHAA.dar@horusinc.com>
References: <200012112049.PAA26100@okura.cowell.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000858
G'day guys,
Have any of you seen the new CAV stuff from Reaper miniatures? They've
got
a site up at
http://www.cavhq.com/main.htm
The miniatures look pretty nice, haven't had a time to look over the
rules
yet, so can't comment there (got some demo ones up on the site). The bit
that might interest FT players though is that under their "Galaxy Tour"
they've got a galaxy map with jump routes and jump points marked on,
could
be very handy for campaigns.
Cheers
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06927;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:38:46 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC4RJg34848;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 20:27:16 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC4RFm34827
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:UFMYRgZeKR/NC3nltVQsDo5dkoUCULw6@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC4REP34822
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:27:14
-0800 (PST)
Received: from unebmail.uneb.edu ([199.240.194.41])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC4RDf02625
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:27:13 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from devans@uneb.edu)
Subject: Re: [DS/FT] CAV
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000
Message-ID: <OF1A7C187B.117CDA9F-ON862569B3.00176495@uneb.edu>
From: devans@uneb.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:29:33 -0600
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on UNEBMAIL/Servers/UNEBR(Release 5.0.5
|September 22, 2000) at
12/11/2000 10:29:42 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000859
Thanks for the reminder, Beth.
The maps are certainly as usable as old Traveller or the old Starlord
map,
and now we've got spiffy color printers at work to make it worthy
printing
my own.
I'd picked up a printed copy of the rules at GenCon (handed out for free
by
Reaper), but hadn't looked closely at it. I've a 'thing' about
anthropomorphic vehicles. Walkers, ok; humanoid giant robots, just can't
quite accept.
However, I noticed on the site they are going to have other vehicles
too. I
wish them luck; after AoG's crash-and-burn with Starseige: Rebellion,
it's
a gutsy move.
Speaking of which, AoG has announced they are clearing out the last of
their S:R vehicles in a grab bag mode. No guarantee on selection, but I
did
get Bruce Graw to say he'd take 'no-HERC' orders. ;->=
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:06 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA06379;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:59:17 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC1m6h31590;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 17:48:05 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC1m4D31569
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:dBhuaEOOCjYUqV9MLArU4D76pc8Tcz2m@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC1m2P31564
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:48:02
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.quixnet.net (psmtp3.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.53] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC1m2f84160
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:48:02 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from laserlight@quixnet.net)
Received: from pavilion (1Cust227.tnt8.princess-anne.va.da.uu.net
[63.26.238.227])
by smtp3.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA05888
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:47:59 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <000901c063f6$8d854540$e3ee1a3f@pavilion>
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <OF446952B4.E3E6C21B-ON862569B3.000181FA@uneb.edu>
Subject: Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:46:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000855
> By the way, I believe I once heard of a convention of giving a
visiting
> Captain a temporary 'promotion', at least in reference, as there
'can only
> be one Captain on a ship'.
>
> Was I hallucinating? (Flashbacks can be SO embarassing...) Was that
in the
> US Navy? Does it still happen? I could see Commodore holding over
for just
> such a circumstance.
Heinlein (who was in the US Navy for a bit) had that bit in Starship
Troopers (the book, of course) about the MI captain being referred to
by the Navy as "major" whilst aboard ship. Don't know about calling
other navy captains "commodore."
This isn't evidence either why about your hallucinations, of course.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12576;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:07:12 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC4wEm35274;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 20:58:09 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC4w7p35229
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:nIMYcw/mqfulTGEtOETOJJEURubx5THs@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC4w5P35217
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from m23.boston.juno.com (m23.boston.juno.com [63.211.172.86])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC4w4f05820
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:05 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from triphibious@juno.com)
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for
<"RB/cfsyM2/M1yrWiZvQCQcmaDsml/t4kD6uEbbr8RHD6lCfG/KPDbw==">
Received: (from triphibious@juno.com)
by m23.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id FQ3JLKSB; Mon, 11 Dec 2000
23:57:44 EST
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [OT] Sub-Himalayan ? was [FT, SG] Tell the world, I goofed
and acronyms
Message-ID: <20001212.225325.10255.1.triphibious@juno.com>
References: <145W12-0kHiOeC@fwd02.sul.t-online.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-28
From: Glenn m wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:57:44 EST
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000085a
On 11 Dec 2000 16:41 GMT KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de writes:
>>----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
>> From: "Glenn m wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
>> > I think my 1908 British Survey of India charts comment over
>> Ah the good old Himalaya Survey. Did a bit of work on various
>> surveys, Ellipsoid models etc back in the 80s for a really long >
>range plot for Subs.
>
>Subs and the Himalayas ? Is this some kind of hush-hush project ?
Aren't they all? <grin>
>Sub-terranean ? Sub-glacial ?
>
>:-)
>Karl Heinz
Insert tounge in cheek
Think Victorian steam punk modernized...
Remove tounge in cheek
Gracias, Triphibious/Glenn (first war game played 1959)
Triphibious Marines = Nektons.
Not all Frogs are French, or even Human!
Nektons, be all the Marine you can be!
Resistance is EVERYTHING! [And MANDATORY!]
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:09 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12703;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:08:52 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC4wC335269;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 20:58:10 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC4w9u35235
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:VegzFslL+Ee9ZssdIlb2hO8HaH+3stNd@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC4w6P35223
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:06
-0800 (PST)
Received: from m23.boston.juno.com (m23.boston.juno.com [63.211.172.86])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC4w5f05823
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:58:05 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from triphibious@juno.com)
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for
<"RB/cfsyM2/M1yrWiZvQCQcmaDsml/t4kD6uEbbr8RHAG32ShRxD8ew==">
Received: (from triphibious@juno.com)
by m23.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id FQ3JLKRH; Mon, 11 Dec 2000
23:57:44 EST
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT, SG] Tell the world, I goofed and acronyms
Message-ID: <20001212.225325.10255.0.triphibious@juno.com>
References:
<4.2.2.20001208163320.00a2e5d0@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au><4.2.2.2000120910
2803.00a41670@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
<20001209.191522.9087.7.triphibious@juno.com>
<012f01c06387$91e7db80$8f478bca@avis>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-22,25-31
From: Glenn m wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:57:44 EST
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000085c
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:31:57 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
<aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>From: "Glenn m wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
>
>> I think my 1908 British Survey of India charts comment over
>***static***
>> (country) confirmed the bad news they had heard from the first group
>of
>> briefings. Basically all that nice 1990's/2000 stuff over Indonesia
>> was.. Australian produced. One guys uses 1873 charts over part of
>BZZZZT
>> for his base maps for compilation jobs
>
>Ah the good old Himalaya Survey. Did a bit of work on various surveys,
>Ellipsoid models etc back in the 80s for a really long range plot for
>Subs.
>
>Hey at the time there were still great swathes of the Pacific where
>the
>most accurate charts were from 1770, done by a bloke called Cook....
>
Seriously, there are some islands that have never been mapped since. Of
course, if we "need" to intervene there guess whose fault that will
be....
Gracias, Triphibious/Glenn (first war game played 1959)
Triphibious Marines = Nektons.
Not all Frogs are French, or even Human!
Nektons, be all the Marine you can be!
Resistance is EVERYTHING! [And MANDATORY!]
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12686;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:08:40 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC50G935367;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 21:00:15 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC50EV35346
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:o7jQXIPjSWqG/OSR599D2MyIWaSUCndz@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC50CP35341
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:00:12
-0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC50Cf06491
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:00:12 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from JDoch226@aol.com)
Received: from JDoch226@aol.com
by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id d.7a.de201eb (3977)
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:59:55 -0500
(EST)
From: JDoch226@aol.com
Message-ID: <7a.de201eb.27670aca@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:59:54 EST
Subject: Re: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000085b
In a message dated 12/11/00 5:23:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ShldWulf@aol.com writes:
<< There is always using something like the old game "Cerberus" which
I've
seen
used for StarFire planetary combat. (I always thought it would be good
for a
combined game of Dirtside II and SG2 >>
I'd like to hear more about this game. What scale was it, what was map
like,
how did rules work?
Jed Docherty
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:09 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA13480;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:11:33 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBC53OY35472;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 21:03:23 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBC53M135451
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:p2xNagkTcbZ+kCR7dqrryWAhHdajIUGL@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBC53KP35446
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:03:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBC53Jf06774
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:03:20 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
id <YM7VRCA5>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:03:13 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D12C@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
Subject: DS2 --> SG2 harmonization
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:03:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000085d
Hi all
It has occured to me as I browse my rules for these two wonderful games
that
there exist a number of incongruities between the rulesets and for one
interested in harmonizing them, some method of addressing them needs
undertaken.
I will outline them, and ask for anyone to point out any I've missed.
1) Time scale as it pertains to movement
DS2 claims 15 min turns, SG2 roughly 5 min. The problem is with infantry
movement -- In SG2, a normal unit can patrol move (not combat move) 360m
in
3 turns. In DS2, the infantry element only moves 200m. If these guys
were
combat moving, they'd have a maximum move of 720m (unlikely admittedly)
not
counting exploits or multiple activations. And PA could move twice that
-
about 1440m (as opposed to 600m in DS2 plus 600m if CAing). So PA move
rates
might not be far off, but infantry in DS2 are slow.
2) Use of quality of unit
In SG2, this determines weapon range for infantry elements. In DS2, the
determiner is weapon type.
3) Different morale rules and effects of suppresion/under fire
For example, a unit with 50% casualties behaves very differently
(or can) under the two systems. Especially if the casualty accrual
was slow.
4) Missing systems
DS2 is missing GMS/P. SG2 is missing AutoGLs, HMGs, APFCs, PDS.
5) Missing vehicle systems (related to 4)
DS2 includes stealth to lower target signature making a DS2
vehicle with high stealth hard to hit with GMS. This system
makes no appearance in SG2 and so the vehicle is easy to hit,
and its PDS and APFC don't help because they aren't there
either. This makes a viable design in one system not so viable
in the other.
6. Varying vehicle construction rules.
Size 6 and 7 vehicles in DS2 but not SG2. Engineers and GMS and LAD
teams take up a bit of extra space, but no hint of that is given in
SG2. There are also items relating to APSWs, weapon fits, etc.
7. Missing command re-activation in DS2
One of the strongpoints of SG2 is the ability of the commander to
impact the battle with careful choices of re-activations. Such a thing
seems to be missing from DS2.
8. Weapon range incongruities
SG2 limits vehicle weapons to 600m vs small targets. DS2 makes no such
limit.
Undoubtedly, I'm missing some. But the nice thing is, since these
systems
have SO much in common... it ought to be a fairly elegant bit of
legerdemain
to put them together, not so much a hack as a tweak. I'll have more
specific
thoughts on how I (for myself) plan to bridge these gaps as I think
about
this over the holidays.
As an added bonus, I note that DS2 and SG2 vehicle construction rules
are
showing their age. With FB2, the FTers tossed away artificial
limitations on
hull sizes that tied them to set sizes and thus made them frequently
redesign ships from scratch if something didn't fit. In SG2 and DS2,
based
on size class, we have the same "fit" issues. We have the practical
consideration that, unlike FT, these size classes have some game impact
so
we can't do away with them. But what we can do is get around that
problem
quite elegantly.
Construct your DS2 or SG2 vehicle by figuring how many spaces you need
(Andy, let's take the LAV-25 I picked off your sight, an illegal
design).
Want to carry 2 infantry elements (8 guys) plus a 25mm chaingun (RFAC/1
in a
turret) and an APSW/SAW. So, we have a class 2 vehicle, which normally
has
10 cap points holding 8 points of infantry and 3 points of RFAC... ARGH!
Either we have an illegal design or we make it size 3 and try to figure
out
what to do with 4 more capacity points. Senseless.
Instead, just design an 11 capacity vehicle. Then it all fits.
But, wait! The universe collapses! What size class is it? Help! How do
the
point costs work? Argh!
When calculating the basic hull cost, instead of multiplying size class
by
5, just use the capacity points you plan (say in this case 11). Then
that'll
work into BVP and it all works nicely.
Now, wait! How do we solve size class?
Cap Size class Description
0 0 PA
1 0.5 Motorcycle/Cavalry, Terminator Armour
2 0.5 Motorcycle/SideCar, Heavy PA/Heavy Gear
3-7 1 Jeeps, FAV
8-12 2 Small to mid sized APCs, Civilian Trucks, ARVs
13-17 3 Larger APCs, Small MBTs
18-22 4 Normal MBTs, Big Ass APC (Phalanx - in SG2, illegal!)
23-27 5 Big MBTs, Small Interface landers
28-32 6 Interface landers, super tanks, transports, etc
33-37 7 The biggest of the big
38+ Oversize
Note, this now lets me build the above LAV, or Jon's illegal Phalanx
design
from the back of the SG2 rules (2 x DFFG/1 in turrets + 16 infantry is
either 21 or 22 capacity points, no way it would fit in 20 as specified
in
the book....).
This lets me build the LIPPC as a 12 point target class 2 object and
mount
a GMS/L and a class 1 gun while still having room for 7 infantry.
You can see the advantages of this system - the same advantage as
tossing
the arbitrary size limits in FT2 - makes it much easier to fit things
you
know should fit in a given model in the size class the model appears to
be.
Of course, the other answer is to just build the mini as you see it and
say
to heck with the rules, but that doesn't seem right in points-based DS2
where you should pay a few more points for the extra size!
Comments? Feedback?
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:10 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10166;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:07:46 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCB7gC48833;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 03:07:37 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCB7a848812
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:iGJlCzNf+kVJpTikXQdf2/XNXOpWDIFz@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCB7YP48807
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:07:34
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au
(mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au [24.192.1.29])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCB7Xf49363
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:07:33 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oglover@bigpond.net.au)
Received: from homeii (CPE-144-132-109-193.vic.bigpond.net.au
[144.132.109.193])
by mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id
WAA00906
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:07:25 +1100
(EDT)
From: "Owen Glover" <oglover@bigpond.net.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:05:48 +1100
Message-ID: <001601c0642b$7bb366a0$c16d8490@homeii.vic.bigpond.net.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200012112049.PAA26100@okura.cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000085f
I always seem to miss these threads due to the Time Zone differences!
We've taken a number of approaches although they all revolve around an
umpired system.
1. We utilised the old GDW board-games
Assault/BootsnSaddles/Cheiftan to
manage the upper level movement. When the units came into contact we
could
transfer to a table and play out a game; unist invloved would reflect
counters that were on game board. If no game was possible the Umpire let
the
CRT resolve it. Fairly easy to allow US, BRITS, SOVBLOC etc represent
the
GZG nationalitites.
2. Using a map based game where each commander issued his orders
which wer
e
passed onto the Ref to resolve locations for contacts. This was very
much
like your GM resolution. That was our last Esperance Campaign whcih we
found
to be very successful although we did run out of steam. No resource
management required but there were effective Zones of Control and
Resupply.
Distance from Combat Support ended up translating into an effect on CL
or
troops available for a game.
3. We are curently trialling the computer game Brigade Combat Team
as our
Tactical level trooop manager. At the Operational Level we are using a
GIS
mapping tool; AGIS (www.agismap.com) which is a very impressive tool
that
allows multiple layers of data. The beauty of it is that you can have
accurate location tracking (in Lat and Long) on the map; these are
simply
space de-limited text files that can imported/exported to Excel! It
still
requires a ref to collate Red and Blue force locations; he receives a
data
file from each player which he places into HIS AGIS display as different
layers. When opposing units come into contact a game is resolved! You
can
use either BCT or another game; TACOPs to do quick resolution if a table
top
game isn't possible!
BCT is very customisable from a Weapon, Vehicle, Unit point of
view but
a
little complicated. TACOPs is simple to configure basic orbats but
weapons
ad vehicles are fixed. Currently they only support US, CA, AUS, NZ and
OPFOR
kit.
Hope this is some value?
Cheers,
Owen
PS Our new campaign is based on Borneo/Sarawak/Sabah and is called
Konfrontasi 2020!! Gonna be a lot of fun!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Andy Cowell
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 December 2000 6:50 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
>
>
> In message
> <604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>, "
> Parrott, Charles P" writes:
> > I overlooked the original post, were you looking for specific
> SG2 campaigns
> > systems or other games that can be used for SG2?
>
> Either-- I've never heard of an SG2-specific campaign system, so I'm
> expecting the later.
>
> > As for ideas, I've always been fond of the merc approach where you
> > start with limited funds and buy your forces and take contracts to
> > earn more money to upgrade and/or buy your forces. Our gaming group
>
> I'm introducing my current gaming group to SG2, and thought a campaign
> system would be fun. Here are the obvious:
>
> 1) "Choose your own adventure." I'm GMing the games so far, rather
> than participating, so this might be a good way to start out. It
> would require no formal system of rules, either.
>
> 2) "Playing Quartermaster." Actually working out reinforcements and
> engagements due to a formal set of rules. This appeals to me the
> most, and would also mean I could possibly participate equally.
>
> 3) "Mercenary." Like you mentioned, a system of earning and spending
> resources through conflicts. Reminds me of Necromunda, one of the few
> GW games I've really enjoyed. Lets players really get involved with
> their troops. Hmmm....that's interesting...
>
> Any others?
>
>
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:10 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA15452;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:38:39 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCBc7p49233;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 03:38:06 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCBc5349211
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:E1ZADI5VQCa6eEj/mp+YxKWyeyqeLNYf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCBc3P49206
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:38:03
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com
[194.25.134.82])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCBc2f52331
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:38:02 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.com
by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp
id 145nkv-0001KF-01; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:38:01 +0100
Received: from webmail.t-online.de (320051779127-0001@[194.25.134.49])
by fwd06.sul.t-online.com
with smtp id 145nkt-1spJGiC; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:37:59 +0100
Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:37 GMT
From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
Subject: Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: T-Online WebMail 0.99
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID: <145nkt-1spJGiC@fwd06.sul.t-online.com>
X-Sender: 320051779127-0001@t-dialin.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
id eBCBc3P49207
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000860
> To bring this kinda on topic: has anyone done up a list of ranks for
> the various forces in the Tuffleyverse?
I have done so for the LLAR, see:
http://home.t-online.de/home/kh.ranitzsch/lira/liramilitary-en.html
Greetings
Karl Heinz
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA01721;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:41:17 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCFVXK52773;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 07:31:13 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCFVCr52748
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.colorado.edu
[128.138.241.27])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCFVBP52742
for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:31:11
-0800 (PST)
Received: (from seidl@localhost)
by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBCFV5j21285
for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:31:05
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:O0U7Nzmst/cFtU/jXSz+6Rgda97TEGJF@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCFT5P52712
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:29:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCFT5f70711
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:29:05 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J8NVG3>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:28:33 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006EB@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: DS2 --> SG2 harmonization
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:28:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000861
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barclay, Tom [SMTP:tomb@bitheads.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 12:03 AM
> To: 'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'
> Cc: Barclay, Tom
> Subject: DS2 --> SG2 harmonization
>
> Hi all
>
> It has occured to me as I browse my rules for these two wonderful
games
> that
> there exist a number of incongruities between the rulesets and for one
> interested in harmonizing them, some method of addressing them needs
> undertaken.
>
> I will outline them, and ask for anyone to point out any I've missed.
>
> 1) Time scale as it pertains to movement
> DS2 claims 15 min turns, SG2 roughly 5 min. The problem is with
infantry
> movement -- In SG2, a normal unit can patrol move (not combat move)
360m
> in
> 3 turns. In DS2, the infantry element only moves 200m. If these guys
were
> combat moving, they'd have a maximum move of 720m (unlikely
admittedly)
> not
> counting exploits or multiple activations. And PA could move twice
that -
> about 1440m (as opposed to 600m in DS2 plus 600m if CAing). So PA move
> rates
> might not be far off, but infantry in DS2 are slow.
>
[Bri] It abstracts out nicely though. In most SG2 games the troops are
not moving at full speed every turn. They stop short to take advantage
of
terrain. Much of this terrain is abstracted out of DS2 (too small). So
2/3rd
of full movement makes sense (200m/300m) over 1 DS turn or 3 SG turns.
DS2 does figure a double movement for close assaults (combat move)
without all the hassel of checking to see if they tripped (low roll for
combat
move).
And you forget the other side of the coin, in SG2 vehicles move MUCH TOO
SLOWLY. In DS2 Grav units can move 1500m over normal terrain. This
would translate into a move of 25" base movement in SG2. I understand
that this is not desireable in SG2 for purposes of game balance. You
would set up the table and whoosh the enemy would be in your flank (not
a desirable possition).
I can live with the movement differences. I could see allowing units in
DS2
to do double movement if they forego thier combat action, but that would
be a major change to the rules (grav vehicles would be able to move
30").
> 2) Use of quality of unit
> In SG2, this determines weapon range for infantry elements. In DS2,
the
> determiner is weapon type.
>
[Bri] Again, this is abstracted down. In SG2, the abilty
to hit is decreased with range. In DS2 there is only one
range, but to-hit is based on Quality. I guess you could
change and use range bands, but then you would need to
shift the roll for effective fire DOWN (as there is no
size die to shift up) or increase the chit total needed
to kill the element. Range bands in SG are Elite 12";
Veteran 10"; Regular 8"; Green 6"; and Untrained 4".
Each 1" in DS2 = 10" in SG2.
So lets take look:
Range Range Band for Quality:
Elite Veteran Regular Green Untrained
1" 1 1 2 2 4
2" 2 2 3 4 5
3" 3 3 4 5 -
4" 4 4 5 - -
5" 5 5 - - -
6" 5 - - - -
And Effective fire (shift down per range band) would be:
Range Die for Effective Fire
Elite Veteran Regular Green Untrained
1" d12 d10 d8* d6* d4*
2" d10 d8 d4 - -
3" d8 d6 - - -
4" d6 d4 - - -
5" d4 - - - -
6" d4 - - - -
*Adjusted up to give basic roll for effective fire in
close range band. A strict match would drop these
values by 1 or 2 die types.
The other option would be to increase the damage needed
to kill the target element (by 1 per range band):
Range Damage Needed to Kill Militia/Line/PA:
Elite Veteran Regular Green Untrained
1" 3/4/5 3/4/5 4/5/6 4/5/6 7/8/9
2" 4/5/6 5/6/7 5/6/7 7/8/9 8/9/-
3" 6/7/8 6/7/8 7/8/9 8/9/- -
4" 7/8/9 7/8/9 8/9/- - -
5" 8/9/- 8/9/- - - -
6" 8/9/- - - - -
Subtract 1 needed to kill a Militia and Add 1 to kill
Power Armor.
With PA and ASPW drawing 3 chits and all others drawing
2 chits, this makes infantry all but immune except at
the closest range bands.
Both of the above are actually LESS than the standard
DS2 rules. So infantry ranges would need to be REDUCED.
> 3) Different morale rules and effects of suppresion/under fire
[snip]
> 4) Missing systems
> DS2 is missing GMS/P. SG2 is missing AutoGLs, HMGs, APFCs, PDS.
>
> 5) Missing vehicle systems (related to 4)
[snip]
> 6. Varying vehicle construction rules.
[snip]
> 7. Missing command re-activation in DS2
> One of the strongpoints of SG2 is the ability of the commander to
> impact the battle with careful choices of re-activations. Such a thing
> seems to be missing from DS2.
>
> 8. Weapon range incongruities
> SG2 limits vehicle weapons to 600m vs small targets. DS2 makes no such
> limit.
>
[Bri] In DS2:
Systems: Max Range* # Chits Valid Chits
HELs 36" 2 Yellow
RFACs, MDCs, HVCs Medium 2 Yellow
RFAC/1 12" 2 Yellow
RFAC/2 18" 2 Yellow
MDC/1 16" 2 Yellow
MDC/2 24" 2 Yellow
MDC/3 36" 2 Yellow
MDC/4 42" 2 Yellow
MDC/5 48" 2 Yellow
HVC/3 24" 2 Yellow
HVC/4 27" 2 Yellow
HVC/5 30" 2 Yellow
HKPs, GMSs, IAVRs Ineffective vs Infantry
DFFGs Medium 3 Red
DFFG/1 8" 3 Red
DFFG/2 12" 3 Red
DFFG/3 16" 3 Red
DFFG/4 20" 3 Red
DFFG/5 24" 3 Red
SLAMs Close Normal Yellow
SLAM/3 12 3 Yellow
SLAM/4 12 4 Yellow
SLAM/5 12 5 Yellow
*vs Infantry. Medium except for HEL and SLAMs.
So SG2 heavy weapon ranges vs infantry should be increased.
DS2 abstracts this by reducing range (but not as much
as SG2), number of chits drawn, and chit validity
> Undoubtedly, I'm missing some. [snip]
>
[Bri] Heavy Weapons ranges vs point targets (i.e. vehicle
to vehicle combat) in SG2 need to be brought into line
with DS2 ranges.
> As an added bonus, I note that DS2 and SG2 vehicle construction rules
are
> showing their age. [snip]
>
> Construct your DS2 or SG2 vehicle by figuring how many spaces you need
> [snip]
>
> When calculating the basic hull cost, instead of multiplying size
class by
> 5, just use the capacity points you plan (say in this case 11). Then
> that'll
> work into BVP and it all works nicely.
>
> Now, wait! How do we solve size class?
>
> Cap Size class Description
> 0 0 PA
> 1 0.5 Motorcycle/Cavalry, Terminator Armour
> 2 0.5 Motorcycle/SideCar, Heavy PA/Heavy Gear
> 3-7 1 Jeeps, FAV
> 8-12 2 Small to mid sized APCs, Civilian Trucks, ARVs
> 13-17 3 Larger APCs, Small MBTs
> 18-22 4 Normal MBTs, Big Ass APC (Phalanx - in SG2, illegal!)
> 23-27 5 Big MBTs, Small Interface landers
> 28-32 6 Interface landers, super tanks, transports, etc
> 33-37 7 The biggest of the big
> 38+ Oversize
>
[Bri] Why not just divide the capacity points by 5 (round
up) to get size? All that you did above was to shift the
size by 2 capacity points (12 instead of 10; 17 instead
of 15; etc.).
Dividing by 5 keeps it consistant with the rules as written
(and does not invaidate any existing legal vehicles). [The
NAC Phalanx would still need to be corrected to size 5 for
targeting.]
But I like your idea of construction using capacity points
instead of starting with the vehicle size.
> Note, this now lets me build the above LAV, or Jon's illegal Phalanx
> design
> from the back of the SG2 rules (2 x DFFG/1 in turrets + 16 infantry is
> either 21 or 22 capacity points, no way it would fit in 20 as
specified in
> the book....).
>
> This lets me build the LIPPC as a 12 point target class 2 object and
mount
> a GMS/L and a class 1 gun while still having room for 7 infantry.
>
> You can see the advantages of this system - the same advantage as
tossing
> the arbitrary size limits in FT2 - makes it much easier to fit things
you
> know should fit in a given model in the size class the model appears
to
> be.
>
> Of course, the other answer is to just build the mini as you see it
and
> say
> to heck with the rules, but that doesn't seem right in points-based
DS2
> where you should pay a few more points for the extra size!
>
> Comments? Feedback?
-----End Original Message-----
My comments, above, marked by [Bri]
In doing conversions, we need to make sure not to unbalance
the games or slow them down too much.
The danger in altering SG2 is that game balance may change
(the game is already the slowest of the GZG games).
The main danage in DS2 is slowing the game down. Adding too
many fiddley measurements or exception rules will kill the
game just because of its scale (number of elements).
---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/
---
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA22834;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:03:24 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCGvUB54383;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 08:57:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCGvRb54361
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:GCvp/6yTdO3WMJndL0HJgzwh2DBk8BYr@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCGvQP54356
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:26
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCGvPf92165
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:25 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17176
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:57:30 -0500
Message-Id: <200012121657.LAA17176@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: How do Reinforcements work?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:57:30 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000862
This might seem like an odd question, but in reality, how does
reinforcement work? Are newly trained troops given to each
organizational leader who, each in turn, allocates them to the leaders
under him? Are troops ever/often moved "laterally" to reinforce other
groups? Are partial strength groups ever/often merged together into
full strength groups? At what levels?
(The technical term escapes me-- by group, I mean an organizational
structure such as a company or platoon, etc...)
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA30455;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:28:34 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCHOZB54897;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 09:24:34 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCHOXj54876
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:6KLHCKkWnXxsUKSd5tlCVrL4tRC6td+E@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCHOVP54871
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:24:31
-0800 (PST)
Received: from glitch.crosswinds.net (glitch.crosswinds.net
[209.208.163.35])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCHOUf96482
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:24:30 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from burgundavia@crosswinds.net)
Received: from Corey (h24-66-161-211.gv.shawcable.net [24.66.161.211])
by glitch.crosswinds.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11323
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:24:26 -0500
(EST)
(envelope-from burgundavia@crosswinds.net)
Message-Id:
<4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswinds.net>
X-Sender: burgundavia@burgundavia@pop.crosswinds.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:25:25 -0800
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Corey Burger <burgundavia@crosswinds.net>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001211151948.00a381c0@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
References: <3A33BE86.6020607@ice.net>
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to>
<3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
<004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
<001e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis>
<3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<00e801c062a3$f8c7aa40$97478bca@avis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000863
Hey, us Canucks get even less for our dollar!
At 03:21 PM 12/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
>G'day guys,
>
> >BTW, anyone else in America find it scary that it
> >is a tad cheaper to order GZG stuff from Eureka in
> > Aussie-land and pay the shipping then it is to
> >order from GeoHex with free shipping?
>
>What's scary is when any one in Aussie land contemplates ordering
>overseas, but I guess that's what I get for living in a country where
the
>local dollar is really worth about 2 brass razoos! ;)
>
>Cheers
>
>Beth
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>Elizabeth Fulton
>c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
>GPO Box 1538
>HOBART
>TASMANIA 7001
>AUSTRALIA
>Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
>Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
>
>email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07016;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:09:48 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCHuFk55545;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 09:56:13 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCHuC755522
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:8sQSrDCQgfzhPc88b3EyB8R+NZ64bSV5@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCHuAP55515
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:56:10
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.19])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCHu9f02230
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:56:10 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz)
Received: from Al ([203.96.110.123]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP
id <20001212175603.HUTF1003258.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@Al>
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:56:03 +1300
Message-ID: <013d01c06464$dc7f2080$7b6e60cb@Bri>
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006E5@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: [FT, SG] Tell the world, I've updated the page
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:56:31 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000866
Brian Bell wrote:
> I am having some personal health problems (blood sugar spiked over 500
one
day, now on some medication to help control it),...
Being recently diagnosed diabetic myself (three months), I sympathise
with
you. I hope you get better soon.
I found that taking Omega 3 fish oil capsules and regular exercise
(30
minutes walking every day) make a world of difference. This might help
you
as well.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://members.nbci.com/AndrewMartin/
-><-