DS3 design (long)

Finally caught up on all of the posts I missed, and I thought I'd throw
in  some comments and ideas.

First, some enthusiastic compliments:

1)  I like the idea of selecting Armor Level for each side of the
vehicle in the design stage in place of the present fixed-relation
system.  However, this will require an increase in the capacity of each
size of vehicle (assuming the armor takes up capacity).  As a baseline,
I'd say a size 1 vehicle should have 10 capacity: 6 sides of level 1
armor plus either an infantry fireteam or a turreted class 1 weapon.

2)  I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however
if combined with buying armor (as above), maybe it should be 10, 20,
40, etc..  This system is especially needed for those that reference
existing MBT size vehicles in the Size 3 range, because other existing
vehicles then fall way outside the sequence were they "should" fall.  

E.g. #1: LVTP7/AAVP7 is about the size of a contemporary MBT but
carries 25 troops plus two turreted (light) weapons.  E.g. #2:	CH-53
carries up to 55 troops.  If this is size 8-10, then what size is an
LCAC?  The doubling system would take care of these nicely.

3)  I like the idea of ammo for missile systems.  We use the following:

i) GMS takes up capacity like other weapons, i.e. 2x class fixed, 3x
class turreted.

ii) a GMS comes with a "basic load" equal to half its quality, i.e. a
d8 GMS has 4 missiles, d10 GMS has 5 missiles.

iii) an additional "basic load" can be purchased for capacity = size
+1, e.g. a GMS/1(L) can get another basic load for 2 cap., and a
GMS/2(H) for 3 cap.

Next, some ideas to fix some of the other problems talked about:

4) I agree that a system needs to be developed where the triangle of
capacity-armor-movement all come into consideration during vehicle
design without resorting to points costs.  We have been experimenting
with using the following:

i) Treat movement values as die types.	Base move values of 15 are
changed to 16 (=d8x2)

ii) Movement types that have both a "Fast" and "Slow" option use the
"Fast" value for vehicles size 2 or less, and the "Slow" value for
vehicles size 3 and larger.

iii) When designing a vehicle, it is assumed that the movement and
capacity values represent a vehicle of a given size class with maximum
armor level.  For each level of armor less than the maximum, the player
may either a) increase movement by 1 die type or b) increase capacity
by the vehicle size.  E.g. a size 4 vehicle has level 2 armor and a
base movement of 10.  It may have a) increase movement 2 "die types" to
16, b) increase capacity by 2x(+4)= +8, or c) increase movement 1 "die
type" to 12 and also increase capacity by +4.

This is just a variant that we are using.  Obviously the exact details
would be different if the system is changed to require capacity to be
used to buy armor levels as well (as in #1 above), but movement rate
should also effect capacity or armor without resorting to using a
points value, as not everyone uses the (optional) points system.  This
might further increase the needed baseline capacity o a size 1 vehicle.

5)  I agree that the range of tech levels should be expanded.  We use
the following:
d4 = Inferior or Antiquated systems
d6 = Basic, Poor, or Obsolescent systems
d8 = Standard systems
d10 = Enhanced systms
d12 = Superior systems

We assign a "Tech level" to a force, then carry that throughout the
systems.

In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity a
system takes up tied to both the system's Quality as well as the tech
level of the force it represents.  E.g. if Force A has Standard Quality
technology and Force B uses Enhanced Quality technology, then a system
which takes up 2 capacity for Force A (having a d8 QD) should also take
up 2 capacity for Force B (but use a d10).  Force B's higher tech base
allows them an advantage.  This does not prevent Force A from making a
d10 quality system, but then it takes up more capacity than Force B's
system with equivalent capabilities.

6)  Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
i) "Vehicle speeds are too slow." [for a 15 minute game turn]
ii) "If my fire support roll fails, what is my arty battery doing for
15 minutes?"
iii) "Fire rates are too slow.	Modern MBTs could take 50 aimed shots
in a 15 minute game turn."

Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption of the 15 min. game turn.
 change it to 4-5 minutes and it reduces the problem substantially.

Additionally: change the activation into 2 actions like SG2, allowing a
vehicle to FIRE-FIRE or MOVE-MOVE

7)  Weapons.  Lots of problems here.
i) The DS2 weapons which correspond to modern weapons are significantly
less capable than modern systems in the same class, particularly the
HVC and GMS.  E.g. 1991 GW experience showed US and UK forces having
very high hit rates at 3000-3500m (~80%+).  That can't be done in DS2.

ii) Lots of SF weapons have a variety of interpretations depending on
the setting that you are playing in, and DS2 is difficult to tinker
(unlike SG2).

iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level horizon
on Earth.  Why?  Not all battles are fought on a flat plain at sea
level.	If I am on a hill, ridge or escarpment, I should be able to
shoot at targets 7, 8, or more km away with a laser.  Even on terrain
blocking ground level LOS, I should get a shot at VTOLs that would be
beyond the horizon if they were grounded.  Additionally, as a SF game,
not all planets will have a 6km horizon.  Some might be 5500m or less,
others 7000m or more.

A solution is to have a system were the players design the weapons by
selecting a few values, maybe have some special options for special
abilities (like lasers/other beam types, etc.), instead of having them
pre-set.  Eliminating the chit-drawing and altering the to-hit system
slightly allow this to be quite easy.  This would also allow players to
make as many or as few weapon categories as they want (eg maybe I want
EM and grav drivers as seperate categories while someone else lumps
them together), and place capabilities as advanced or as limited as
they prefer.  If anyone is interested, I can briefly outline the
variant that we use.

8)  As written, DS2 assumes that all weapons of a given size and class
are the same capabilities.  However, by applying tech levels to the
force, this can give wider variety.

E.g. Force A (Standard) has tanks with HVC/4.  Force B (Enhanced) has
tanks with HVC/4(En).  HVC/4(En) takes up cpacity as a class 4 weapon,
but has abilities 1 class higher (range and penetration as HVC/5).

Finally, Some points where I don't have a specific suggestion, but
rather a general concept:

9)  Someone brought up that allowing players to select the values of
their various armor locations in exchange for capacity would result in
very thin top armor.  This is true, but only because DS2 is seriously
lacking in top-attack weapons, even compared to modern systems
(mid-1990s on).  I believe this is due to a lack of general publicity
for the proliferation of top-attack weapons.  Additionally, all of the
examples brought up were of direct-attack type weapons.  A significant
number of stand-off TA weapons using explosively forged kinetic
penetrators have entered service in the last 10 years, even for MBT
main cannon.

This concept of stand-off TA weapons can be extended in a SF setting
into a wide range of submunition types.  E.g. instead of EFKP, how
about a single shot chemical laser, a single shot plasma launcher
(DFFG), or a single shot grav-driver shotgun firing a spray of long-rod
penetrators?  Due to the nature of the weapon, it can be significantly
stripped down from a weapon that needs to survive multiple uses and
retain very devastating characteristics.

A proliferation of TA weapons in the game will inevitably lead to a
Darwinian thickening of top armor (just as it will in the real world).

10)  Additionally, several people have asserted that the widespread use
of PDS systems will reduce the effectiveness of artillery and
direct-fire ballistic weapons.	The stand-off TA weapon makes such
weapons significantly less effective.

Hypothetical examples: a heavy artillery rocket deploying a payload of
several hundred CEM-type submunitions might be relatively easy for a
PDS to deal with, since it only has to engage those submunitions that
it computes will actually strike its vehicle; on the other hand, the
same HAR deploying 10-20 SFW-type submunitions will be much more of a
threat since the PDS will have to engage every one that comes within
attack range.  This can defeat the PDS in several ways: a) saturate the
system with targets so it cannot engage them all before being attacked,
b) stand-off range may be longer than PDS range, c) PDS may not carry
enough ammunition to engage all targets, especially if subject to
multiple rounds in a single attack or multiple attacks.

10)  Artillery is understrength in DS2.  Specifically in:
i) munition and submunition types and capabilities
ii) lack of precision guided munition types; including those that need
target designation, those that make course corrections to target
coordinates, and those that seek targets autonomously.
iii) assumption of vulnerability to counterbattery tracking.  A unit
firing smart or brilliant munitions might not even have to stop to
fire.
iv) low ammunition capacity: with designated or autonomous munitions, a
single ammo-marker may account for enough shells to make single-target
attacks for the entire game.
v) small area of effect/low fire rate: a single piece using designated
or autonomous munitions or submunitions might be able to affect a much
larger area when rapid-firing than one firing HE or dumb submunitions.

J