Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: Multiple and Mixed weapons turrets

Re: DS2 AAR and questions

From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:52:20 -0400
Subject: Re: DS2 AAR and questions

At 10:48 AM -0400 7/19/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
>Yes, and probably not worth it but it has some historical precedence I
>believe.  At least in testing, I am unsure it anyone fielded a turret
>with a mini-turret on top for the commander's cupola gun to function
>independently (I think it was tried but found to be not worth the
>increased cost and maintenance... can't remember what vehicle(s)

The grant had a smaller commanders MG cupola above the 37mm mounted 
turret. In that situation for anything larger than a MG, you should 
be paying for an additional turret.
>Maybe.  The turn in DS2 is 'variable' from a few seconds to (for
>considerations) 15 minutes.  Essentially this means - 'don't sweat it,
>just play the game' <grin>.  But it could represent time enough to
>targets, especially in light of  the last paragraph of "Hidden Units"
>page 20 - those AI's *never* lose  track of a unit once it is revealed!
>And GMS's certainly are different from Direct Fire Guns...

Though again. 4 shots vs 8. Thats a serious balance issue.

>No reason.  But the issue of different guns targeting different targets
>from the same turret was brought up as a 'perversion' of the Mixed
>weapons in the same turret (original) discussion.  In that case I was
>only suggesting you could fire both guns at the same target.  Something
>implicitly denied in the rules.

Probably due to the fact that a combined mount would have to lay the 
gun at one angle for one variety of weapon and in a different manner 
for the other weapon. An MDC/5 will have to account for correolliss 
effect, crosswind, target/firer movement, barometric pressure, etc. A 
HEL/2 would not, an RFAC/2 would have different parameters for the 
compensation against he above factors.

>Not to mention more and more dice rolls.  Not necessarily something I
>*want* but something to be discussed, evaluated (and IMO) rejected.

Full Metal Anorak. Its the D4/D6/D8/D10/D12 system concept in 
general. Both DS and SG are FMA systems, FT is not.
>  I prefer one target, all weapons in the turret in range; roll for the
>first weapon (longest range probably,) if the target survives, then
>for the other one (If the MDC 'Kills' the target it is irrelevant what
>the DFFG did except maybe for campaign tracking for recovery of
>vehicles...)  Or you could roll two dice at the same time.
>Now I designed (but haven't tried fielding) a Hel-1 version of the
>Ontos.... (13 cap points IIRC) that becomes 'buckets of dice' like
>Warhammer Ancients...	Couldn't figure a good enough reason why anybody
>would field it in battle.

The die rolls aren't the hard part. Its pull a chit, put it back. 
Pull a chit, put it back, etc, etc, etc. I've build one with HEL/2's 
but it's not so effective against the bigger stuff. I'd rather be 
guaranteed a hit with an MDC/5 most of the time than hope for that 
odd Boom chit.

>>>>But an M3 has two fire cons doesn't it? Two gunners, two loaders.
>>>>Commander right? Thats not an advanced fire con firing at different
>>>>targets, its a different crewman operating a different weapon.
>  >>>
>I honestly don't remember the crew of an M3.


Gunner 37mm
Loader 37mm
Radio Operator
Gunner 75mm
Loader 75mm

>And would be forbidden in DS2.   Even using the Hull 75mm and the Coax
>is not allowed.

That is one thing that is slightly different. If the Commander orders 
the crew to engage infantry targets in a Treeline, Its not a big jump 
for them to halt behind a berm and the gunner starts engaging with HE 
rounds while the Commander cranks off rounds with the Cupola MG. 
Against dispersed targets like that, you aren't going for point 
targets. You're engaging an area and trying to create a beaten zone. 
4 tanks doing this (especially when using Beehive rounds) are going 
to create a nasty place for infantry to be.

>  >>
>>>It was there (essentially two basic FCS) but it doesn't have to be? 
>>>turret with a DFFG/5 and a HEL/2 might fire on closer Size 3 MBT's
>  >with
>>>the DFFG and more distant GMS/L armed size 2 APC's with the HEL.
>>How? You are tracking two different targets at the same time. Aren't
>>the weapons slaved together?
>Depends on the PSB, I would assume so but...  And fire along the same
>line of sight but at different ranges would 'only' require different
>elevations (yes, it's more complicated then that in reality but then
>are back to "SFDS2".)

Different bearing leads too, if the target is moving while you do as 
well. One weapon will have a different time of flight compared to 
another which changes the lead angle.
>Yes, and it's a possible route for munchkinism to start in DS2.  But
>is here already in some degree.  The custom design of ships or task
>forces for one off games is an 'acceptable' form of

But the Single weapon vehicles shouldn't have 1/2 the number of shots 
as the doubly fitted units.

- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- -
-		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
- C&R-FFL -	Toronto, Gun down some squeegee kids,	 - NRA -
-		 Then you can host the Olympics too!	       -	 

Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: Multiple and Mixed weapons turrets