RE: [DS3] Dirtside Accelerator for Infantry

CS Renegade wrote:

>> I've introduced the Dirtside Accelerator
>> [http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/199903/msg00351.html]
>> at my local club.

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
> Sent: 02 September 2004 17:32
> Subject: Re: [DS3] Dirtside Accelerator for Infantry

> That was Jon's first draft. It has undergone a few rounds of
> development since, eg. this one:

> <http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200110/msg00036.html>

Thanks for the update, Oerjan. Everyone please disregard my
original posting; I now have to read the latest version...

Why is the proposed HEAT class restricted to missiles? Given the
relative figures surely HVC should fire HEAT rounds at long range?

Reading through the following posts made to the above article, I'd
solve the concerns over low dice having a disproportionate chance of
scoring special damage by staying true to the concept behind the
accelerator and dropping the Special Damage rule completely. Keeping
these cases off the table does speed the game up, and if there is
demand to keep Special Damage in the ruleset then I'd favour putting
a big "Optional Rules" label on them.

>> [on the multiplied die concept] I'm having difficulty losing my
>> "weapon X beats armour x" >> & "armour X is proof against weapon x"
>> wargamer's mentality, where X > x.

> Hm? The *accelerator* allows armour X to be proof against weapon x and

> vice versa (for large enough values of X and small enough values of
x);
> the *chits* don't (thanks to those "0" and "BOOM" chits).  Why do you
> have to lose this particular mentality when you change *from* the
chits
> *to* the accelerator...?

I think our problems centred around large-die low-calibre weapons
against
strong armour that had the misfortune to roll low. It just didn't seem
right somehow, so I ran some test cases and discovered that the chances
worrying me were fairly low - for example 1xD10 vs 3xD8 has a 15% chance
of success whereas 2xD10 vs 4xD8 has a 25% chance of success, but would
be expected to be more lethal anyway. Under the chit system the worst a
single chit could do would be to damage an armour/3 target, but the
chance of two chits knocking out armour/3 rises to 28%. I realise I'm
being blind to the possibility of a special chit here, which may go some
way to explaining my original reaction.

>> Am I correct in thinking that single opposed dice give a flatter
>> distribution than drawing N chits against a fixed target total,
>> when N > 2?

> Yes. This is why most "simple" DS-FMA systems (the ones that try to 
> map weapon sizes/armour ratings directly to particular unmodified die
> types) tend to make all weapons very similar to each other,

<boggle> that wouldn't have enough range to handle DS properly...
 
> and why the Accelerator concept *doesn't* use just "single opposed
> dice" but "single opposed dice multiplied by the armour rating or
> weapon size" - the multiplication gets you away from those narrow
> distributions.

But the distributions are still flat - I'm looking at all those nice
curves on my diagrams of the chit draw system. We seem to have little
option but to <shudder> roll lots of dice.

> ... here are the kill probabilities in % for fire against infantry
> targets using the chits, your above "direct translation", your below
> "alternative infantry fire", and my above-mentioned update of Jon's DS
> Accelerator:
>
> Chits:
> Values are for the chit validities All/R&Y/R/Y (remember that infantry
> fire during Close Assaults shifts the validities one step upwards):

And it's quite possible that flipping back through the rules to check
infantry fire validity, I read the close assault validities by mistake.

> Weapon:\Target:     Militia	      Line	      PA
> Militia/Line/APFC   53/36/22/10     28/16/07/02     11/06/03/01
> PA/APSW	      79/58/37/16     60/37/18/05     38/21/09/02
> HEL etc.:		  10		  2		  1
> DFFG: 		  37		  18		  9
> SLAM/3:		  16		  5		  2
> SLAM/4:		  22		  9		  4
> SLAM/5:		  29		  13		  7

There appears to be something I'm not aware of regards chit validity
when
shooting at infantry - these aren't the figures I would expect at all.
For example SLAM vs infantry (I thought I'd discovered what SLAM was
good
for) DS2, pg 36, col 1, final paragraph extending over next column,
paraphrased as "draws chits equal to class, valid as per infantry fire-
fight". Has there been a correction published?

> "direct translation" system:

> I couldn't see anything about increasing firepower in Close Assaults

I must make a confession regards Close Assaults. I have basically
ignored
this area of the rules because in the all the games of DS2 I've played,
they never happen! Although I frequently arrange for both sides to field
infantry, they generally stay in the transports and are never effective
unless they can get to a worthwhile objective (such as a built-up area)
before the enemy appear. APCs are seen as big, fat, undergunned targets.

> You seem to allow cover to protect infantry against heavy weapons
> (which is good)

Again, I was under the impression that the differing chit validities for
infantry in cover _did_ apply to all weapons. I'm now getting worried;
my edition of DS2 is copyright 1993 with an ISBN of 0-9521936-0-4; am I
working from an old copy?

> Below "alternative infantry" system:

Regards my "alternative" figures, I nearly didn't post them as they were
completely untried and and did represent a departure from the technology
laid out by the quoted pages; for example, all MDCs are described as
small-calibre rapid-fire weapons whereas I envision the larger class
guns
throwing projectiles no smaller than those fired by comparable HVCs.
Possibly I'm just prejudiced by the number of models available in the
market with large-calibre guns looking for a role, and I'm certainly not
sticking HVC on a hovertank.

Although I didn't factor it in, I'd also favour replacing the current
DFFG dynamic with one nearer to Drake's powerguns. Let's face it, even
the name DFFG is a misnomer; what we really have is a rather soggy
plasma
cannon which my group for one has forsworn ever to use again.

> Note that since each shot can potentially kill multiple targets...

I recollect one of the innumerable "low vs high technology" threads
where  
there was a need to put down swarms of low-technology "militia" before
they overran the high-technology forces. Logically, this is what APSWs
were originally designed to do, but they need to be able to eliminate
multiple stands in the time available.

> I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "cannister" and
> "flechette" here - today at least flechettes are usually used just in
> cannister ("beehive") rounds.

I was under the vague impression that a cannister round flew its fused
distance then went bang, showering the immediate area downrange with
irregular-shaped fragments moving at the cannister's velocity, whereas
a flechette was a sabot round with multiple darts spreading from the
muzzle in a fairly tight pattern, but I'm freely mixing various
proposals for future technologies that I've come across over the years.
A flechette dart wouldn't tumble and would therefore strike the target
with greater penetration, but there would be less chance of being struck
by one because of the smaller number and the closer grouping.

I'm all in favour of giving powered armour a choice of weapons (spot
the Heavy Gear fan) so "AP" power armour would have a low-calibre weapon
with a high cyclic rate for dealing with unarmoured infantry. A more
typical PA would focus on knocking out vehicles or other powered armour.

> .. HELs and RFAC/2s firing at infantry in cover... end up with zero
> dice if the target has any cover at all!

I didn't mind knocking HEL & RFAC/2 down to zero effect as I couldn't
really see them doing recon-by-fire, which is what shooting at infantry
in soft cover can degenerate into.

>> if some of the chances I propose seem a bit strange it's because I've
>> assumed that anything larger than RFAC-2 is mainly effective through
>> blast or equivalent effect rather than a direct hit.

> ...whereas RFAC/1 is effective mainly through rate of fire, and the
> RFAC/2 isn't effective at all if the target is in any kind of cover?

Precisely. Rereading pg 8 I can see that I had mentally dropped 10mm
from the calibres. I was reckoning 25-30mm to be too slow to be really
effective against infantry and too small to fire a decent cannister
round. (And no, I am NOT volunteering to be shot at by any 25mm weapon
in order to prove this theory!).

Nathan