Re: Another TD idea

Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
>I thought the whole point of DSII was to be able to play with *my*
>miniatures in *my* world.
    That's why you and your opponents have to agree on a common genre.
Which
includes genre specific limitations and genre specific extensions.
    For example, DSII GMS as written have no place in a Hammer's
Slammers
genre. One Hammer's Slammers genre limitation is: "No GMS". The missiles
used in Hammer's Slammers are instead wireguided, operator controlled
units
which are easily destroyed by any tank crew.
    Powerguns have no place in GZG's Future History genre either. They
are
an extension of DSII mechanics to better suit the Hammer's Slammers
genre.
One Hammer's Slammers genre extension is: "Powerguns allowed".

>I may be asking too much, but I think "being able to play" includes
"being
>able to play *at roughly equal footing*", i.e. it excludes "the stuff
they
>put in to be able to say it's there but no one should really use".
    Once the above limitations and extensions are in, I don't think that
this will apply.

>E.g. let's say I want to play out the battles in Hammer's Slammers
novel
>"The Warrior". The opposing forces include a top-notch merc TD unit. Am
I
>to believe that those mercs simply made an outmoded, obsolete, useless
and
>stupid design choice and the high regard given by the Slammers is
>completely unfounded?
    The merc's TD unit is not outmoded, not obsolete, not useless and
definitely not a stupid design choice. It is one of the best choices for
a
defensive engagement as written by David Drake. Therefore we need to
find
out the reasons why it was so and include these reasons in the genre
extensions and limitations.
    Perhaps the biggest one is that no GMS are allowed. That means the
emphasis falls back on the AT gun to destroy tanks at range. The guns
need
to be self propelled to maintain mobility, to avoid being over run and
to
protect the crew from artillery bursts. Therefore a hull mounted main
gun
seems appropriate.
    Using an existing MBT hull for commonality of parts sounds like a
good
idea. Saves on maintenance costs! Now remove the turret and install a
larger
AT power gun. Standard Powerguns used in turreted GEV tanks only range
from
size 1 to size 5. So a AT Powergun would probably be larger and have
further
range. So there would be AT Powerguns ranging from size 2 to size 6 (or
even
7 perhaps).
    So we install a next size up power gun in the main hull. The turret
removal lowered the hull silhouette, so now the TD's signature goes
down.
Because this is a defensive vehicle, we can move some of the hull's rear
armour and place it on the front. Together with the better sloping and
removal of the turret, the armour level at the front arc goes up one
level.

>In other words: How would it hurt your turreted force that I might
field
>viable turretless designs?
    So now we have a TD variant that's harder to hit, harder to kill,
and
does more damage when it hits. Does this variant seem like an outmoded,
obsolete, useless, or stupid design choice for a top-notch mercenary
unit?

Andrew Martin
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/