RE: Multi-genre Dirtside II at conventions...

On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 22:07, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
> 
> > What I have in mind is to run three different games, each 
> > with different scenarios, one showing how DSII can do 
> > WWII conflicts, the second representing modern conflicts, 
> > and the final scenario showing a futuristic conflict.
> 
> Sounds cool.

Thanks, but stonking hard, as I learned reading your insightful
comments.

>  
> > In fact, it would kind of be ideal if the stats between
> > scenarios kind of reflected how much better an Abrams is than a
Tiger,
> > and how much better a Bolo MkIV is than an Abrams.	While 
> > someone would be more than welcome to participate in 
> > all three games, it shouldn't be necessary for them 
> > to appreciate the goodness that is DSII...
> 
> The only hot potato may be reflecting the resolution within an era as
well
> as keeping it between eras. The place to start may be to sit down and
decide
> what you want in the scenarios. Sorry my knowledge of modern military
> history and weapons tech is still poor so don't grimace to much as I
take a
> ham fisted swipe at this (Oerjan would be the person to get help from
I'd
> say)

Yes, I think I'll have to back off of the consistency between games and
instead stick to keeping the games self-contained, but still using a
common ruleset, that being DSII.  

I've been reading the SGII rules too much I think.  I'm not REAL
familiar with any GZG rules as yet, and I think I confuzzed the
fine-grain detail of some elements of SGII and thought I could get that
out of DSII.  I'm glad I gave myself a long time to work out this stuff.

So:  The "Hot Potato" of keeping stats between genres consistent is
dropped.  I like mashed potatoes better anyway... 

> Anyway lets say....
> 
> WWII = German tanks vs Soviet Tanks
> - CFEs
> - tracked
> - RFACs, HVC and/or HKPs depending on what's appropriate (if it fits
with
> the real effects etc, may be you should steer clear of buying the
absolute
> max size weapon that fits the vehicle and go for smaller sized
weapons, so
> you can have extra punch in  the other era's too)

Keeping in mind that I'm no longer looking at keeps stats consistent
across genres, I'll consider that WWII equipment might not have had the
technology (metallurgy, miniaturization, etc) to fit everything that the
DSII system allows to be designed into a hull.

> - even though there is no incentive in the current DS design system
not to
> have full armour maybe for this exercise you could buy less armour
than max
> if that better matches reality, only have ablative or reactive if that
is
> appropriate (sorry don't know much about the tanks really)
> - no stealth (I would've thought)

Here, I think it depends.  Jadpanzers had a very low silhouette for
their armor and armament.  Perhaps a "until they move/fire" stealth is
appropriate for Jagdpazers that are hull-down.	I'll have to re-read
just how stealth works to decide if that fits... 
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/jagd.html

(Note:	Incidentally, that site is a great one for checking out this or
that historical AFV:  www.wwiivehicles.com )

> - no missiles (though I'm on shakey ground here...)

Definitely no missiles for WWII.  Rockets?  On aircraft for late-war,
and as artillery, most definitely.

> - artillery and lots of it from what I've heard... biochem if you so
desire,

Yup.  For WWII, I'll have to figure out something (probably a modified
procedure for calling arty strikes) to show the vastly different
doctrines for calling fire.  The US and British arty was much more
responsive than German arty in Late-war.  (I'll be trying to represent
Late-war anyway.)

Biochem I'm not sure I'd use.  I'm not entirely sure it would be
accurate.  I have yet to see a specific reference to it's use in WWII
(WWI, certainly, but not WWII.)  Someone who is a bit more up on WWII
history, please enlighten me.

> but nukes are out obviously (not that I'd put these in "standard"
games
> anyway), but treat all calls as if artillery off-board (even if on)
> - aerospace would be fine, but no VTOLs (sorry if this is telling you
how to
> suck eggs I'm kinda thinking out loud here)

NP... 

> - basic system qualities (e.g. fire control)

Some Shermans(?) had stabilizing gyroscopes for their main guns. 
Sometimes they even worked!  Maybe I'll find a way to fit that in with a
higher FC that worked "sometimes".

> - if you want to have infantry have them as pure foot sloggers, in
trucks or
> parachutes (they may well have had APCs too, I'm not sure myself but
the
> accounts I've read don't mention them)

APC's were certainly in use, though not as we think of them today. 
Think half-tracks like the:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/sdKfz251.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/halftracks.html
Or an obsolete tank with the turret and crew-related innards taken out
like the Canadian Kangaroo, which is mentioned on the site, but not
covered with any detail.

> - I'd steer clear of water related stuff (like boats) for this one
(though
> you could use it as a barrier down one side of the board

Yeah.  I agree.  Though it's a real cool element to have, I don't want
to have anything that gets "left behind" (landing craft) or acts as a
"god of the battle field" (naval guns) because I want pretty much to
make sure that what I have to build/bring to the convention is used for
the entire battle, or at least until destroyed.

> Modern = US vs Iraq (or some what if scenario if you prefer)

Probably a "what if".  I don't want to create a whole new set of desert
terrain/models for thing to look right if I can avoid it.  Probably a US
vs. China or some remnant of the old Soviet Union getting uppity.  The
background will be strictly:  "The two forces are fighting because of
some conflict over their groups respective policies.  What those
policies are is irrelevant except for the fact that it gives us an
excuse to play what will hopefully be a fun game."

> - CFE's (I'm guessing)

Must re-read DSII.  (Hereafter indicated by:  "MRDSII")

> - tracked
> - RFACs, HVC and/or HKPs depending on what's appropriate (this time
buying
> big guns of they fit, to show the extra punch)

MRDSII

> - the fancy armour types would now be OK (as far as I know)
> - GMS, ECM, PDS, LAD etc no OK

MRDSII

> - Enhanced sensors (keep superior for your sci-fi version)
> - some stealth if you consider it miniaturisation or something
> - artillery
> - aerospace and VTOLs (if helicopters actually do feature in modern
tank
> battles)

I think adding VTOLS would be a very good idea for this genre.	Not only
are the available modern helicopter models really cool, but there are
helicopters set up to work as teams:  One fast, light bird gets eyes on
a target and the "gunship" pops the tank from well outside visual
range.	This would really seperate the WWII from the Moderns.

> - use of APCs and line infantry, IAVRs
> - I'd still keep water out of it for now (or have it as a barrier or
river
> to roll across)

Still in agreement.  Water will be limited to maybe a small river with
many fording spots if it's in the game at all.
 
> Sci-fi = kravak vs human (to really capture scifi)

I have to get some sci-fi micro-armor, and I'll be likely to pick up
Epic40K tyranids for the Aliens and then check out whatever GZG figs I
like for the Humans.

> - example of potential humans = hmts, gev, fancy armour, some stealth,
> enhanced and maybe some superior sensors, dffgs and hels
> - example of potential kv = fgp, grav, fancy armour, stealth, superior
> systems, mdcs
> - GMS. ECM, PDS, LAD etc all present
> - artillery, aerospace and VTOLs

For the futuristic game I want to pull out all the stops.  I envision
futuristic warfare to be limited in scope, with surgical assaults being
performed with massive amounts of support from ortillery, aerospace and
whatnot.  I want to do the orbital insertion and everything.

> - power armour infantry
> - walkers if you like them (I know some people don't)

I'd like to include walkers, but more like the Heavy Gear (small
walkers) idea than the BattleTech sized ones.  I don't like the idea of
something that couldn't walk on anything but exposed bedrock or a
prepared surface becuase of the lbs/sq.in on it's feet.

> - oversized or modular vehicles if you're trying to catch people's eye
> (oversize are easy, but modular can be trickier in a con setting
depends how
> confident you are)

Hmm... I hadn't considered that.  It could be fun, to make the last game
a technically superior force attacking the rag-tag locals.  The locals
would have been swept aside except for this one really stonking huge and
dangerous AI tank (or bioconstruct) that JUST WON'T DIE!  You know, the
recurring theme out of the B.O.L.O. series of short-stories.  I'll
consider that.

> - you could have water bodies in this one as they won't phase the
grav/gev

Yeah!  Lots of water.  Maybe enough to make it a bit of an island hop.

> Apart from these ideas you may also want to think if there's specific
facets
> of the various eras not covered by DS as is and whether or not a few
> modifications need to be made... especially in the area of
communications.

Now that I've dropped the desire to have it consistent between the
different genres, I think I've made it much simpler for myself.  I also
think most of the work is done for me.	It's a matter of designing the
scenarios and working through the rules until I can competently run a
game.  
 
Thanks a bunch to everyone who answered!  Keep the input coming.  I'll
be making the whole project a "Look Pretty" thing when I go to the
con(s).  So when it's all said and done, I'll make the
house-rules/scenarios/handouts available for someone to post on their
DSII-related site.

> Cheers
> 
> Beth
> 
> 
-- 

--Flak Magnet
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

"...why I'm so sympathetic to the monsters. The answer is simple.