Re: To Grav or not to Grav?

I probably should wait until I have more reasons but...

Caveats:  I was an Air Force Medic (7 years, 3 month 12 days all but 5
months in Sacramento, CA) with buddies in Communications and flight line
positions.  No personal experience except a ride in a Chinook as to
repair/maintenance of military vehicles.  Followed by 3 years in Seattle
USAR Basic Training unit (104th Division) that was category 15 (out of
15) in priority for readiness.	All the rest is based on 'war stories'
from USMC Uncles, USCG Dad, plus whatever I can read.

Okay, I have given this some minor thought and derived some possible
limitations (and some of these are why Grav vehicles are uncommon in my
games):

0. Game Balance - I keep the Grav stuff for the most advanced group
(NEA)
which suffers from population size (small) and the fact that they are a
semi-autonomous group of the NAC and the Grav stuff technically is on
loan from the NAC while the GEV stuff is "theirs' to abuse... I mean
use.
 It lets me use all that Modern and WW2 stuff I have  no rules to use
anymore also.  Tempted to get some WW1 (but that's OT...)

1. Cost - I think the Grav drives in DS2 are way under priced (IMO) for
even 2100-2200+ but this is just MNSHO...  Have been tempted to double
the cost (or something closer to 150%.)  Unless time and technological
development stand still then GRAV, even Mark XXI with all the bells and
whistles is going to *cost* big time.	Less so then the 'older'
technology of GEV, IMO.

2. Maintenance - If an F-15 takes so much more time (or replacement pull
out and push in  'black boxes' for modules that test not "acceptable")
then a simpler (relatively) F-16 there will be a need for each AFV to
have a 'maintenance crew' as each aircraft has a 'ground crew' - ready
to
reflect this is in your TO&E/costs?  Maybe 50% of the cost of the unit
is
added on when balancing forces by points (I try for estimated force and
effectiveness balances then calculate costs but others may do it
different.)

3. Maintenance costs (see above) This might be why there still are NAC
HMW and Tracked vehicles as has been suggested before.	Plus if you just
pull and replace black boxes then that 'repair/replace' supply tail
becomes vitally important and increasingly vulnerable.	That's part of
the rational for my armed (primarily APSW's but some GMS/L and size 1
turrets depends on leftover capacity after all multiples of  "four" are
used) and armored supply vehicles (ammo, spare parts, on site repair)
for
at least one of the forces I have on paper/in lead.

4. Cultural/Technical limits.  Is the third rate power going to spend
it's 'human resources' on warriors or technicians?  Not everybody is the
NAC/ESU/NSL/FSE or even the UNSC.  And a lack of technicians means
failure rates *before* the scenario starts (Look at Iran's/Iraq's Navy
*before * the war started between them and then look how fast
maintenance
woes made things a joke. What naval battles?)  F-14's (When they could
fly!) engaging with Mark 1 eyeballs and guns fer gosh sake!  Maintenance
is something DS2 *assumes* is done - *assumes*... why does that make me
nervous?  And if you use highly paid 'contract maintenance' workers, who
goes out on the battlefield in their place?  And what if they have
clauses in their contracts that lets them out from being in combat?

5. I limit Grav vehicles to 'just above ground' or at best (and with
armor -1 on the bottom) Low altitude.  My perception of Grav, but
strictly my personal read on Grav.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: