RE: SG2 Vehicle Questions

-----Original Message-----
From: Binhan Lin [mailto:Binhan.Lin@UCHSC.edu]
Subject: Re: SG2 Vehicle Questions

>One word... Maintenance.

>With a crew of four maintaining the vehicle is 33% easier than with 3
people.
>Yes, you
>have technical crew, but field and daily maintenance are always
performed by the
>crew, unless it involves something big like removing the engine.

Hmm, we are discussing two families of vehicles in the same context
which is not appropriate? APCs universally tend to have only two crew.
Tanks have three or four. Different keetle of fish altogether really. It
certainly is a damn sight easier to do maintenance with three or four
bods than with two. Mind you the track links on an M113 are a lot
lighter than a Leopard or Abrahams!

>Another reason is redundancy - if an auto-loader break down, how do you
>load the gun? If a loader becomes incapacitated, you push him out of
the
>way and can still fire the main gun.  Auto-loaders tend to be cranky
and unless
>maintained well, have a habit of acting up.  Once again you get more
maintenance
>with less crew... A factory fresh tank might perform to specs but what
is it
>going
>to be like after a few months in the field with less than optimal
maintenance?

Aw c'mon guys. What about our HELs, PPGs and MDC weapons? This is
science fiction gaming. I think we have to accept the parameters of the
game system and get on with it. Jon T has indicated that most of the
vehicles have crews of two and that most weapon systems have remote
targetting and operation. If we keep on with this line of discussion we
will end up designing SG vehicles that will fit into the Gulf War but
not Fleischer II.

Anyway, we play the games with minimal vehicles because it is after all
an infantry game. The vehicles are there to support the infantry and not
take centre stage. I like my Pan Africans crawling around in the bush
ambushing snooty NAC or NSL tankers. Makes a nice fire to raost
Wildebeast steaks!

Owen G