Prev: RE: Rules Clarifications (new FAQ?) Next: Re: Long Overdue Kudos for ship design

Re: David's vehicle design

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:29:12 EDT
Subject: Re: David's vehicle design

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:07:25 -0400  "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
<> writes:
>So I can get a Size 3 vehicle with 5 MDC/2s (14cap) and 2 APSWs 

Wait a minute, 

Running totals -
Turret: #1, 6 (3x2); #2 10, (6+(2x2)); #3 14 (10+(2x2); plus 2 APSW's
- 5 MDC/2's in a single turret on a size 3 vehicle costs 22 capacity. 

Fixed: #1 (4 (2x2); #2 8 (4 + 2x2); #3 12 (8 + 2x2); #4 16 (12 + (2 x 2)


Obviously a house rule is at work here.

>I think that the weapon number limited to vehicle size is a good rule.
>Perhaps APSWs and Fragmentation Belts should not count toward the max
>weapons numbers (but still cost capacity points)? 

I can accept that easily.  But then it pushes the multiple APSW design
forward as an acceptable alternative.

Still, it would be
>annoying to see a size-3 IFV with 16 APSWs.

A dedicated Infantry support Tank?  A future 'retro' vision of WW1
appropriate for specialized use.  Easily (?) stopped by infantry GMS/L
team(s) combined with Size 2 or maybe even size 1 tankettes with 'real'

>Unfortunately, I think that Jon will have to do a complete revamp on 
>vehicle design for DS3 or BDS as it clearly has multiple problems 
>Plants do not take different capacities, 

Would like 'advanced' engines to take less or more capacity?  I can see
arguments for both based on the dreaded 'multiple tech' rules in games
like Traveller...

Different mobility options 
>are not
>balanced [some take more advanced power plants, but this fails to 
>the mobility types], 

How so?  I would like to hear specific examples or thoughts, please. 
What do you mean by  "...balance the mobility types..."?

Armor takes no capacity, so there if VERY little 
>to take less than max armor, Open Top has NO advantages (not even 

Well, based on how you view armor, this first is true, perhaps, and
perhaps, in game terms there should be a benefit to open tops, but what
'real world' advantage is there to open top vehicles?  Why are there
apparently so few of them?  But then why do real troops prefer
to ride on top of the APC?  I would like to see some cost or (maybe)
speed  advantage for taking less then max armor myself but how to
it in game terms?

>takes too little capacity for the damage they inflict, etc.). 

Sorry, I don't think so, in fact I think they are less effective.  But
that is as  it should be perhaps, for game balance?

>needs to be consolidation on construction between DS and SG (drones, 

Well, I guess if it was your intent to play a linked game between SG2,
DS2, and FT components then in that particular case, sure it would help
(maybe) to have consistently matching pieces.  But how many people play
all three in a linked format? 

'As a 'statistic of 1', I prefer DS2 for my SF games, with FT lagging in
third place (behind Starguard) and SG2 is not in my rules drawer at all.

I don't count OOP rules that never really reached mainstream (like
Stellar Conflicts and Uprisings) or are "Goldy, Oldy, Moldies" (Ratner's
Space Marines - the ultimate detail driven SF skirmish rules perhaps) in
this listing.  Just what I can get others to play.

But does the granularity of the three games lend itself to linkage? 
Consistency is a great goal but linkage takes that goal another step
a power of complication) farther.

But then if I had a decent set of rules for Fantasy, SF would be just
edging out Fantasy in second place behind Historicals as a genre.  I get
the most response to my games at the local historicals group and the
local hobby shop with Matchlocks on the Warpath!  Go figure.

Besides, I am converting most stuff from 25mm to 6mm ("God's Own Scale"
as one person put it) for battle games (25mm still is "King of the
Skirmish Game" to me) so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

>Brian Bell
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Ryan Gill []
>> Sent:	Saturday, July 07, 2001 3:46 PM
>> To:
>> Subject:	Re: David's vehicle design
>> At 3:15 PM -0400 7/7/01, Thomas Barclay wrote:
>> >And as for the "too many weapons" comment,
>> >that is a legal comment from DS2 but that
>> >particular rule is a blatant crock (IMO). Try
>> If folks are willing to toss that out then I am as well.
>> >
>> >building a jeep with a quad .50 mount. This can
>> >be done in real life, but is waaaay illegal under
>> >DS2 rules. 4 APSWs on a size one vehicle? Not
>> >possible, apparently. So this rule is frequently
>> >ignored.

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

Prev: RE: Rules Clarifications (new FAQ?) Next: Re: Long Overdue Kudos for ship design